View Full Version : ITT: CPU Build for d3
Processors
IntelŪ Core™i7-920 Processor(8MB L2 Cache, 2.66GHz)
Operating System
Genuine Windows VistaŪ Home Premium Edition SP1, 64-Bit
Memory
6GB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs
Hard Drives
640GB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Optical Drives
Dual Drives: 16x DVD-ROM Drive + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write
Video Card
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Probably going to just buy this build off dell.
I plan on playing with my 30" GW 1600p monitor (i doubt that the HD will matter)
Would you guys assume this to be sufficient in achieving flawless play? I used to play d2 on a 300mhz gateway and that is something I am never going to do again!
Farmrush
02-03-2009, 00:10
Obviously this will be sufficient with the possible exception of the graphics card for 'ultra high settings.'
6GB of ram is overkill. Like, overkilling the overkill. My computer and my friend both use 2GB setups and running insane games and tons of recording software the ram has never been a problem. I'd go with 3GB unless you can tell me about some weird software you usually run that munches down the RAM enough to make it an issue...
I really suggest that you buy parts online for this thing. Half the fun is buying stuff and then putting it all together, for me, anyways.
It'd be nice if D3 was XP compatible.
Username
03-03-2009, 00:19
i only have a NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE 128mb do i really need to upgrade?
nicro tower
03-03-2009, 01:33
Isn't that an integrated card?
If it is, you should definitely upgrade as that sucks your RAM.
If not, you should upgrade anyways, as that's a pretty bad card. :D
teh_Thrasher
03-03-2009, 05:08
go for the new Nvidia geforce gtx 295, its the "most powerful dual chip graphics card on the planet". ive yet to start construction on my own rig BUT this would be the card of choice for me.
everything else looks like what i would choose.. maybe a bluray drive instead of ur disk drive for high def movie viewing and what not. but thats it... how much did ur 30" monitor cost you?
now u probably dont need the most powerful graphics card out there because of blizzards affinity to support such a broad range of lesser cards but this gives u room for highend games like Crysis... etc.
Farmrush
03-03-2009, 07:12
Although you should know that card is extremely expensive and will be bottlenecked by, yes, even an i7-920.
Crying Freeman
03-03-2009, 09:01
If you have the money to burn in a PC like this you should definitely get that Geforce GTX 295. You will be able to play games at High settings for a long time, even Diablo III, which I believe wonīt come out as a high-end sucking machine.
Diablo II actually was at the time. At least I didnīt have a PII 233 at the time of release, as they were quite expensive. And the performance sucked. I would only get reasonable FPS with a 600+ MHz machine.
And 6 GB RAM isnīt overkill, the system will make good use of it, provided you donīt use XP.
6GB of ram is overkill. Like, overkilling the overkill. Most setups slow down or there's a lot of issues with getting all that ram to play together in a fast and smooth way. I'd go with 2GB.
I really suggest that you buy parts online for this thing. Half the fun is buying stuff and then putting it all together, for me, anyways.
It'd be nice if D3 was XP compatible.
I tried to build my own computer once, with parts off newegg. Failed miserably and now I have $600 worth of computer equipment sitting in my closet.
Doesn't more ram = faster better ? I was under that impression.
how much did ur 30" monitor cost you?
My 30" monitor was around $1300. As far as 30" monitors go it is definitely on the higher end with 1600p HD whateva. That was almost a year ago and the price has probably gone down.
------------------------------
Does anyone know how good the ATI card I have selected is? I'd like a really good one that works perfectly with my monitor, altho diii/sc2 will be the only games I will be playing on this computer.
Agkistrodon
03-03-2009, 20:50
Would you guys assume this to be sufficient in achieving flawless play? I used to play d2 on a 300mhz gateway and that is something I am never going to do again!
Yes, I would also assume you are waiting for someone to do the following:
ZOMG! WOW! THATS SUCH A AWSUM CUMPUTER! MAN, UR SO LEET! I WISH I HAD ALL THE MUNEY U HAVE SO I CUD HAVE SUCH A AWSUM CUMPUTER! OH MAN, I'M SO JEALOUS!!!! OMG!!!! LEET HAX!!!!
There, happy now?
I read this post and I kinda had to laugh because this is almost like the machine I built for D3.
Here are my specs for my i7 killing machine.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/KHIEM/10.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/KHIEM/13.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/KHIEM/3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/KHIEM/IMG_2082.jpg
just installed a new cooler.
Build it yourself man... its better with high end components not generic parts that dell will give ya.
Dell will give you your i7/vid card but mem/mobo/psu/case will be crappy.
Here's something to think about:
WoW looks a lot like the D3 screens.
SC2 is based on the WCIII engine.
I'm guessing that Blizzard likes to put together a solid engine and then keep using it.
Now, D3 won't be out for a while, but I'm betting that the computer requirements are really close to those of WoW.
Another thought: 30" is a lot of damn monitor space! The fact is, there are cheaper monitors ($100-200) that have a much sharper picture/lowest pixel pitch.
EDIT: More information!
i7 isn't any faster than the dual core Intels! The most expensive, Extreme Edition is slower than the core 2 duo E8600 which is priced CHEAPER than the slowest i7, right now. Games just aren't using more than two cores, rendering tri-cores and quad-cores less than required.
I'd drop the money on a cheaper and faster machine that's just a little older than the current technology.
What was wrong with the parts you bought? Most of that stuff has a warranty. If it's broke, send it back. Newegg shoots parts out at everyone, all the time, dealing with UPS and people breaking their stuff and sending it back anyways. I mean, I think they expect at least something to be sent back...
Bladewind
04-03-2009, 08:23
Always get a machine that will last you at least 3 years. That certainly would ! :p
Man what kind of monster cooler is that? Anyway man am I jealous of that setup Bomber. Also if you don't want to build it yourself(I don't either) get it from a place like cyberpower and customize it on the site. They have much better prices than getting it from a company like Dell or HP.
ThulRasha
05-03-2009, 13:46
Doesn't more ram = faster better ? I was under that impression.
Nope. If you have 3 GB ram in a computer, and only 2 GB ever gets used. Then adding 3 more GB ram doesn't do anything at all.
If you only have 1 GB ram, and your computer actually needs to use 2 GB, and because of that it continuesly is swapping memory to and from the hard drive, then adding 1 GB more does indeed make it a lot faster.
It's all about what the computer needs to use and what resources it has.
Man what kind of monster cooler is that? Anyway man am I jealous of that setup Bomber. Also if you don't want to build it yourself(I don't either) get it from a place like cyberpower and customize it on the site. They have much better prices than getting it from a company like Dell or HP.
Do you know if the parts of higher quality?
Anyone know what aspect of a graphics card I need to work flawlessly with a 30" monitor?
ThulRasha
05-03-2009, 16:26
Do you know if the parts of higher quality?
Anyone know what aspect of a graphics card I need to work flawlessly with a 30" monitor?
A 30'' monitor will support a high resolution of 2560x1600. If you want to have the games use this resolution and not stretching a lower one, then you will need a graphics card that is capable of filling that 2560x1600 resolution with data.
For that you will need a graphics card with a high texture fill rate and high pixel fill rate (it differs per game what is used). Usually a graphics card with a high memory bandwidth will have both these at a high fill rate.
A couple weeks ago I upgraded my homemade rig's video card to a PowerColor 4670 1gb. Newegg had it on sale for ~$70. The only high end game I own is Oblivion and I can now play it on full settings without a hiccup. An interesting note is that even though the card has it's own 1gb ddr3, it also borrows from system ram to get a stout total of 2815mb of video memory. So yes, more RAM can be better, if you have the right hardware.
And, probably the best budget ($59), but high performance gaming processor is the Athlon 7750 Kuma. It's actually a phenom with 2 cores disabled, but same architecture, and it's also black edition (unlocked multiplier for easy overclock).
Has anyone seen the video for the Phenom 2 that overclocked to 6500mhz and set record for 45000 points on Mark3d??? They used liquid helium, one of the coldest substances in the universe. Then they pour it on each other's heads???
http://game.amd.com/us-en/landings/dragon.aspx
It is much cheaper, and better to build your own rig if you take the time to research.
Farmrush
05-03-2009, 22:28
Nope. If you have 3 GB ram in a computer, and only 2 GB ever gets used. Then adding 3 more GB ram doesn't do anything at all.
If you only have 1 GB ram, and your computer actually needs to use 2 GB, and because of that it continuesly is swapping memory to and from the hard drive, then adding 1 GB more does indeed make it a lot faster.
It's all about what the computer needs to use and what resources it has.
This is not entirely accurate. First of all it depends on other parts of your system. For example, most people running a 32-bit operating system with 4GB of RAM will be able to use between 3 and 3.5GB. I managed to use around 3.35GB of my RAM running 32-bit XP. On a 64-bit operating system the limit is much higher, and having switched I can now utilize all of my RAM. Although adding more RAM (even in a 64-bit system) doesn't really make it faster. This is due to the fact the your total RAM and the speed of your RAM are independent variables, issues with bottlenecking can pop up, and any average gamer or pc users is rarely going to breach 3GB anyways. At least in these times. However, noticeable speed gains will become apparent if you, for example, did have 1GB and were hitting that limit, so that part is accurate.
Take off windows vista and replace it with windows 7 .. it will be out before D3.
ThulRasha
07-03-2009, 00:11
This is not entirely accurate. First of all it depends on other parts of your system. For example, most people running a 32-bit operating system with 4GB of RAM will be able to use between 3 and 3.5GB. I managed to use around 3.35GB of my RAM running 32-bit XP. On a 64-bit operating system the limit is much higher, and having switched I can now utilize all of my RAM. Although adding more RAM (even in a 64-bit system) doesn't really make it faster. This is due to the fact the your total RAM and the speed of your RAM are independent variables, issues with bottlenecking can pop up, and any average gamer or pc users is rarely going to breach 3GB anyways. At least in these times. However, noticeable speed gains will become apparent if you, for example, did have 1GB and were hitting that limit, so that part is accurate.
What part isn't entirely accurate then? You basically say the same thing as I did, but you added in a short story about 32bit and 64bit versions.
Farmrush
07-03-2009, 00:35
What part isn't entirely accurate then? You basically say the same thing as I did, but you added in a short story about 32bit and 64bit versions.
Most 32bit systems will register somewhere around 3GB, not 2GB. And I expanded on that with the 32bit/64bit "short story."
Really what was the point in even commenting on that? If I said the same thing as you then IGNORE ME, if I said something wrong then CORRECT ME, if all I did was ADD TO IT then he is for the better and there's no reason defend your ego or anything.
6GB of ram is overkill. Like, overkilling the overkill. Most setups slow down or there's a lot of issues with getting all that ram to play together in a fast and smooth way. I'd go with 2GB.
It'd be nice if D3 was XP compatible.
Vista min is 2 Gb. I have a laptop with Vista and 2 Gb memory and it runs slow, even with a dual core processor. On idle it uses 970 Mb ram with Vista fully loaded, meaning nothing turned off.
I am pretty sure they would make D3 XP compatible. XP is the single most popular and most used op system in history. It's not going to become obsolete that fast.
Vista min is 2 Gb. I have a laptop with Vista and 2 Gb memory and it runs slow, even with a dual core processor. On idle it uses 970 Mb ram with Vista fully loaded, meaning nothing turned off.
I am pretty sure they would make D3 XP compatible. XP is the single most popular and most used op system in history. It's not going to become obsolete that fast.
Yeah, Vista is just a giant resource leech. I'm using XP and I've got a few things open and I'm only running at 450 MB.
I've never had any issue with any games needing more then 2GB. Actually, my computer only uses 1.5GB of RAM and it's still not an issue.
Not that it's built to play the high end games, right now, but it manages to play the interesting ones. :smug:
ThulRasha
09-03-2009, 10:06
Most 32bit systems will register somewhere around 3GB, not 2GB. And I expanded on that with the 32bit/64bit "short story."
Really what was the point in even commenting on that? If I said the same thing as you then IGNORE ME, if I said something wrong then CORRECT ME, if all I did was ADD TO IT then he is for the better and there's no reason defend your ego or anything.
Eh? Calm down a bit.
If you only added to it, then it was perfectly accurate in the first place.
The reason I commented on your post was to find out what you thought wasn't accurate.
I now have the answer to that. Thanks...
Farmrush
11-03-2009, 04:34
Eh? Calm down a bit.
If you only added to it, then it was perfectly accurate in the first place.
The reason I commented on your post was to find out what you thought wasn't accurate.
I now have the answer to that. Thanks...
I am calm. I didn't just add to it.
ThulRasha
11-03-2009, 13:56
I am calm. I didn't just add to it.
Okay, if you didn't just add to it, then I ask you again what part of my post wasn't accurate?
I suspect you misread this part of my post:
Nope. If you have 3 GB ram in a computer, and only 2 GB ever gets used. Then adding 3 more GB ram doesn't do anything at all.
You seem to think that I talk about what a 32bit machine or 64bit machine can handle. Well, read it again. I'm not talking about those limitations at all.
If you have 3GB in your computer, and you run processes that use a total of only 2 GB, then not all your memory is used. So adding more will do nothing, since what you have isn't even fully used yet.
Killafornia
13-03-2009, 08:58
6GB of ram is overkill. Like, overkilling the overkill. Most setups slow down or there's a lot of issues with getting all that ram to play together in a fast and smooth way. I'd go with 2GB.
I really suggest that you buy parts online for this thing. Half the fun is buying stuff and then putting it all together, for me, anyways.
It'd be nice if D3 was XP compatible.
I don't think you understand the concept of triple channel.
I don't think you understand the concept of triple channel.
Nice catch! Fixed that up.
Farmrush
15-03-2009, 01:43
Okay, if you didn't just add to it, then I ask you again what part of my post wasn't accurate?
I suspect you misread this part of my post:
You seem to think that I talk about what a 32bit machine or 64bit machine can handle. Well, read it again. I'm not talking about those limitations at all.
If you have 3GB in your computer, and you run processes that use a total of only 2 GB, then not all your memory is used. So adding more will do nothing, since what you have isn't even fully used yet.
I have pointed it out twice now, I'm not going to continue this. And no, I never thought that.
ThulRasha
16-03-2009, 11:42
I have pointed it out twice now, I'm not going to continue this. And no, I never thought that.
You have pointed out nothing relating to my post, only to your own misunderstood thoughts.
You say you never thought that, but why then did you mention those limitations in the first place?
It wasn't even relevant to the question the original poster of this topic asked. (he asked if he was correct in assuming that more memory = faster, wich I answered with a very basic example).
Not expecting an answer to that, since you won't continue this.
Diablo will run on every 3 or so years old rig without problems... and man this PC sux, select the parts yourself! Also, dont buy Windows Vista,get it without OS and install Win 7 Beta, then when Win 7 comes out, buy it.
Raging_Zealot
11-04-2009, 03:32
Although RAM usage is better on 7 than Vista, I still use a fair amount of it. I have Outlook, Pidgin (msging client), Firefox and BitTornado running, and I'm using 59% of 2GB. Granted if I was gaming I would have less background applications running, but still, it is looking like the trend for future Microsoft OSes will require plenty of RAM. If i was trying to build something as "future-proof" as possible (yes I know never fully possible) I would also go for tri-channel 6GB.
To the OP: The specs you listed is all high end equipment for right now, so I'd be very surprised if Diablo III doesn't run very well on it.
TheWanderer
14-04-2009, 01:19
My symphathy is with Agkistrodon.Same problem. None of the green stuff for me,:no:
CaptainDingo
14-04-2009, 19:22
Diablo 3's requirements will be so lax that if you have a computer you built sometime in the last year or two, it'll probably run flawless. Every screenshot I've seen, old and new, backs this up.
Diablo 3 currently looks less technically demanding than Titan Quest, which is several years old now (though definitely ahead of its time). Diablo 3 appears to use less FPS-killing shader effects, has lower polygon counts, and seems to be geared for playability over trying to push graphics to the next level (which is fine by me, graphics whores can GTFO, all they do is influence the industry to make games that make us all waste hundreds of dollars on new graphics cards every few years while gameplay remains stagnant and non-interactive, BUT I DIGRESS).
knightmawko
16-04-2009, 21:04
Ive actually arleady started saving up for my next computer but I have resolved to not start looking/building until D3 and SC2's specs are out in the open
And as for your build, if your going to go with a 2.66 processor and 6G's of RAM, then why not go ahead and ramp the video card up to a flat 1G. Unless of course you intend on getting a small compact computer or an integrated video card (I would strongly advise against an integrated video card) But Im sure you already know all of that hah.
my current rig:
CPU - Intel Q6600 quadcore at 2.4Ghz
GFX card - Nvidia 8800GTX
Mobo - Asus P5K Premium black pearl edition
soundcard - onboard sound
RAM - Tracer Ballsitix 1066 Mhz DDR2 2Gb
HDD - Western Digital Raptor 300Gb
800 watt PSU
Windows XP Pro SP2
All wrapped up in an Akasa Eclipse 62 case.
You could pick allt hat up now for about 650 quid i recon depending on sources and it will destroy practically anything you throw at it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.