Would I be able to get good fps in 25 mans with a computer like this?

[glo]

If you're willing to learn how to build, here's something I just recently put together that will wipe the floor with what you just linked.

Total price: $347 - $360ish with shipping

NZXT M59 - 001BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case $50
HIS H675FS1G Radeon HD 6750 1GB $85
OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W $67 - put in the recommended promo code
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB $25
BIOSTAR H61MGC $50
Intel Pentium G620 2.6Ghz $70
Use your existing HDD drive due to them being 200%+ marked up right now because of the Thailand flooding. The case even comes with a notebook to 3.5 adapter. $0

---------- Post added 2011-11-18 at 05:16 AM ----------

Thank you for the suggestions. How much better do you think those would be compared to the one I was considering getting?

The first one he linked has a rather lackluster video card. The second one he linked would do -slightly- better than the build I linked for half the price.

[vesseblah]

Thank you for the suggestions. How much better do you think those would be compared to the one I was considering getting?

The second one -> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16883227370
will run laps around the computer you were looking from WalMart, at least double framerates in WoW and something that is actually pretty good buy if it fits into your budget. You'll be able to play WoW with high settings on that, even 25-man raids.

[glo]

Not that there's -anything- wrong with that setup, but it's rather funny that they picked a case that absolutely dwarfs the flex atx board it comes with.

[Gnious]

I would say yes.

I got a readeon 6850 HD black Edition, 1G GDDR5 RAM, Intel i7 920 2,67GhZ, 9GB DDR3 1066Mhz, 120GB Kingston HyperX SSD, 7200 RPM HHD and a 500GB 5400 RPM HHD.
I run 25 mans at ultra, with 40+ FPS, drops to 20-30 while using fraps.

The PC you linked got a GPU with almost the same specs as mine, a CPU while more power, per core, (I only use about 30% of my CPU while gaming, and have NOT been overclocked!). You should do fine for a year or two with that machine imo


Edit: My bad, redt wrong at the GPU. You need one with 1+ GB GDDR5 RAM to play well at ultra :-D

[glo]

I would say yes.

I got a readeon 6850 HD black Edition, 1G GDDR5 RAM, Intel i7 920 2,67GhZ, 9GB DDR3 1066Mhz, 120GB Kingston HyperX SSD, 7200 RPM HHD and a 500GB 5400 RPM HHD.
I run 25 mans at ultra, with 40+ FPS, drops to 20-30 while using fraps.

The PC you linked got a GPU with almost the same specs as mine, a CPU while more power, per core, (I only use about 30% of my CPU while gaming, and have NOT been overclocked!). You should do fine for a year or two with that machine imo


Edit: My bad, redt wrong at the GPU. You need one with 1+ GB GDDR5 RAM to play well at ultra :-D

The speed of the RAM (ddr3 vs ddr5) has little to do with the performance difference between cards.

[Maveros]

I would say yes.

I got a readeon 6850 HD black Edition, 1G GDDR5 RAM, Intel i7 920 2,67GhZ, 9GB DDR3 1066Mhz, 120GB Kingston HyperX SSD, 7200 RPM HHD and a 500GB 5400 RPM HHD.
I run 25 mans at ultra, with 40+ FPS, drops to 20-30 while using fraps.

The PC you linked got a GPU with almost the same specs as mine, a CPU while more power, per core, (I only use about 30% of my CPU while gaming, and have NOT been overclocked!). You should do fine for a year or two with that machine imo


Edit: My bad, redt wrong at the GPU. You need one with 1+ GB GDDR5 RAM to play well at ultra :-D

Sorry, but unless you're playing at some garbage resolution... your computer isn't pumping out 40+ FPS in 25m raids.

Edit: It also depends on what you call "ultra." Setting everything to ultra and having shadows on low with x1 multisampling and billinear texture filtering isn't ultra.

[Gnious]

glo and Maveros:

I had 2*GT230 before I got my Radeon 6850 HD Black Edition. I went from setting on medium over all, to everything maxed out.
I play at my 1920*1200 res, at my 24" monitor. I got shadows on highest, and everything possible maxed out. I do get 40+ FPS in raids. Peaks up to a 100.

The driffence between ddr3 and ddr5 did a huge driffence for me. I am just telling you what I have experienced.

[vesseblah]

I had 2*GT230 before I got my Radeon 6850 HD Black Edition. I went from setting on medium over all, to everything maxed out.

The driffence between ddr3 and ddr5 did a huge driffence for me. I am just telling you what I have experienced.

What you experienced is that R6850 has the raw power of about ten GT230's, so yeah, five or six times higher framerate when upgrading from 2x GT230 to Radeon 6850 is totally normal, and it has got very little to do with memory speed.

[Dch48]

The graphics performance of both would be a lot better,especially on the Intel machine which has the HD 6770. The only problem with the Intel one is that it might have switchable graphics and there are issues with drivers switching back and forth between the integrated graphics in the Intel CPU and an AMD discrete card. You might be better off going with the all AMD solution. The graphics (6670) are a little weaker but still far superior to the Nvidia 520 and could always be upgraded at a later date.

Also, every review I have ever read says that the GDDR5 improves graphics performance over GDDR3 by a substantial amount.

[vesseblah]

The only problem with the Intel one is that it might have switchable graphics and there are issues with drivers switching back and forth between the integrated graphics in the Intel CPU and an AMD discrete card.

No it does not, as that computer has H61 based motherboard, not Z68.

Also, every review I have ever read says that the GDDR5 improves graphics performance over GDDR3 by a substantial amount.

GDDR5 runs exactly twice as fast as GDDR3, but it's not the whole thing. Memory bandwidth of the card matters more, as does the number of shaders/stream processors.

[shadowkras]

People didnt even look at the link before answering.

iBUYPOWER Gamer Power WA591D3 Desktop PC:
Key Features and Benefits:
AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition processor
2.80GHz
8GB of DDR3 SDRAM system memory
Give you the ability to handle most power-hungry applications and tons of multimedia work
1TB SATA hard drive
Store 666,000 photos, 285,000 songs or 526 hours of HD video and more
Blu-ray disc player DVD/RW drive
Watch HD movies, and read and write CDs and DVDs in multiple formats
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Connect to a broadband modem with or wired broadband router with wired Ethernet
NVIDIA GT520 graphics
With 1GB of video memory and DirectX11 support

30 fps on 25man? Yes, but you might need to use medium or even low graphic settings.
The videocard is good, the ram is fine. Only thing really lacking is your processor. Try to keep as little programs running as possible when raiding and you will be fine. Dont expect fantastic graphics though.

x1 multisampling

Ugh, anything over x2 multisampling on games makes my eyes puke.
Who can play with so much blur?

(To those that dont understand, multisampling renders the polygons at a higher resolution then downsample them to your resolution, making edges less squary and pixel details look blurry).

[vesseblah]

People didnt even look at the link before answering.

And you didn't look at the post/thread title. Playing on the linked computer is possible, but not on good framerate which was asked for. There's no point paying $500 for a turd from WalMart when you can get five times better framerates with the $620 computer from Newegg.

The videocard is good,

Not on planet Earth, maybe where you come from. 520 is meant for HTPC/porn/facebook/email use, not for any kind of 3D games.

(To those that dont understand, multisampling renders the polygons at a higher resolution then downsample them to your resolution, making edges less squary and pixel details look blurry).

No, it does not make the objects blurry, only the edges.

[coldfiredragon]

I don't know anything about computers, so all of the information is just a bunch of gibberish. Would this computer be able to get 20-30 fps in 25 mans? http://www.walmart.com/ip/iBuypower-...591D3/17113673

It is really lacking in the video department. I would recomend you look at iBuyPower's site and build one how you want. www.ibuypower.com

Start here with an A Series AMD http://www.ibuypower.com/Store/AMD_A-Series_APU for a good price / performacne setup.

[shadowkras]

And you didn't look at the post/thread title. Playing on the linked computer is possible, but not on good framerate which was asked for. There's no point paying $500 for a turd from WalMart when you can get five times better framerates with the $620 computer from Newegg.

Yes i did, in fact. And iv raided 25man on 1 fps before (with onboard video adapter) , 30 FPS is plenty for raiding. You dont need 120 FPS in order to kill a boss.
That setup is fine, you dont need to play the game on ultra graphics to enjoy it.

Could he get a better computer for the same price? Thats another topic.

No, it does not make the objects blurry, only the edges.

Objects with too many edges or small objects will look completely blurry. Specially on values over x8 mulstisampling.

[vesseblah]

Objects with too many edges or small objects will look completely blurry. Specially on values over x8 mulstisampling.

1) You are not supposed to use MSAA higher than 8x ever. That's why games don't use 16/32 even on ultra settings. It's very hard to see any improvement or difference going up from 4x to 8x already.

2) To improve quality of small or complex objects you need to play at high resolution, such as 1920x1080. If you stick with some old shit 1280x1024 then yes, everything will look either blurry (with 16x MSAA) or blocky (with 0 MSAA).

Unless you up the resolution to acceptable levels (which you can't with GT520) and use appropriate MSAA setting (which again you can't with GT520), games will look like shit. And that's why the $500 computer OP linked is very bad purchase... Unless you want to play with 0 MSAA on old stamp-sized 800x600 monitor, as that's where GT520 will give playable framerates.

[Dch48]

1) You are not supposed to use MSAA higher than 8x ever. That's why games don't use 16/32 even on ultra settings. It's very hard to see any improvement or difference going up from 4x to 8x already.

2) To improve quality of small or complex objects you need to play at high resolution, such as 1920x1080. If you stick with some old shit 1280x1024 then yes, everything will look either blurry (with 16x MSAA) or blocky (with 0 MSAA).

Unless you up the resolution to acceptable levels (which you can't with GT520) and use appropriate MSAA setting (which again you can't with GT520), games will look like shit. And that's why the $500 computer OP linked is very bad purchase-- Unless you want to play with 0 MSAA on old stamp-sized 800x600 monitor, as that's where GT520 will give playable framerates.

Now that is really overstating the case. It would give playable framerates with a mix of low and medium settings at a resolution of 1366 X 768 and certainly at 1280 X 800 and that would be with at least 2 X AA and trilinear filtering. The game would also look pretty good. You don't really need those very high resolutions or ultra graphics settings for any game currently available, let alone WoW. As I've said before, in my opinion, the ultra settings in WoW make the game look worse, not better.

I raided 25 mans all through BC and LK on a single core laptop with Radeon Xpress 200 integrated graphics and 1280 X 800 resolution with 2 X AA (for some reason I got more fps with 2 X than with 1X and it certainly looked better as well). Sometimes I would dip below 10 fps where there were a lot of trash mobs but after the mobs were gone, I'd be at 18-25 in the same place which is playable. Now in the main cities, I'd constantly be under 10fps but who really cares there?

It also depends what mode of AA you use. The box mode doesn't blur things as much as the tent modes do and the edge detect sometimes can really blur textures while causing a large hit in performance as well. I always use box mode no higher than 4X.

[vesseblah]

It would give playable framerates with a mix of low and medium settings at a resolution of 1366 X 768 and certainly at 1280 X 800

Problem is, that you can not get that small monitors as new anywhere. Only the "HD Ready" TVs support resolutions that low. Here in Finland it's actually impossible to buy a monitor with lower resolution than 1680x1050 except on special order, and about 95% of all models are 1920x1080 resolution.

There really is no point to buy computer that can only run on toy monitors if there is any possible way to avoid it, because when your toy monitor from ten years back dies and you buy a new one, the computer is unable to show any frames per second and will run your games at seconds per frame speed instead.

[Dch48]

Problem is, that you can not get that small monitors as new anywhere. Only the "HD Ready" TVs support resolutions that low. Here in Finland it's actually impossible to buy a monitor with lower resolution than 1680x1050 except on special order, and about 95% of all models are 1920x1080 resolution.

There really is no point to buy computer that can only run on toy monitors if there is any possible way to avoid it, because when your toy monitor from ten years back dies and you buy a new one, the computer is unable to show any frames per second and will run your games at seconds per frame speed instead.

Come on, the stores here are full of monitors with 1366 X 768 resolution. I just bought one 2 weeks ago at Walmart for $99. It's an AOC 18.5" which is all the person who needed it wanted. I also think anything larger than 23" is too big for a computer monitor. It's hard to find a monitor here that goes up to 1920 X 1080 and if you do, they're prohibitively expensive. Most of the ones available won't do 1080p at all but you don't really need that for gaming anyway.