PC Hardware | video settings | benchmarksPC

[KingPing]

I have a little question. Iam running a Sapphire R9 280x Toxic GPU and an Intel i7 4790k CPU.
Iam playing every game on Ultra without any problems.
I never checked my FPS in Assetto Corsa and this morning i thought its time to do that.
I opened Fraps and drove 2 Laps in Practice Mode on Imola with the Formula Abarth.

The fps were between 100-115 which is perfectly fine for me (most of the time i play games on 60 or 90 fps so that my GPU doesnt have to run on 100%) but its quite low if i compaire it with other games in relation with the graphics.
For me personally the graphics of AC are just OK nothing special, i thought i would get an easy 150+ fps.

The curious thing is that i dont even hear my GPU. Normally if i switch V-Sync Off my GPU goes to 100% because it wants to push the highest fps's and it gets quite loud, but in case of Assetto Corsa i dont hear it and it doesnt "look" like it would run on 100%.

Is the fps limited to 100-120 in AC?

For example: iam playing BF3/4 or Dead Island (of course everything on ULTRA) with FPS above 100.

It's because AC is more CPU dependent, and it could be a bit better optimized.

Meaning? Is that PC-gamer scorn looking down on console gamers/gaming?

"PC hardware - how will AC run" that's the thread's title, not "Console fanboy propaganda"

 

[Whitestar]

@Johnnypenso: Looks like a very nice rig. IMO @KingPing is spot on with his comments about it. I would follow his advice.

@schmocke: To be fair these things are always a bit anecdotal. I'm sure that MSI board will work just fine.

 

[Johnnypenso]

1) are you going to overclock the CPU?, if not choose the i5-4690 (non K) you save $20, drop the 212 (i5 non OC, the stock heatsink is enough) you save another $25

2) the sound card is a POS and it's redundant, the motherboard already has opt out. Only buy a sound card if it's a high end one if not is not worth it. You save $59

3) unless you are going to SLI/Crossfire or buying super extravagant high end cards you don't need a 750W PSU, a 600W Corsair PSU is more than enough. you save like $40

With all the money saved i would drop the GTX760 and buy something like this http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-n770tf4gd5oc

BUT!

Some advises: you could follow 2 paths IMO: go for the GTX760 now and upgrade in a few years, you will expend more in the long term, but you will end up with a much faster GPU than the best GPU available today. Or if you want a PC that last a few years, 2GB of Vram for the GPU is not going to cut it, go for at least 3GB GPUs. Buy something like this http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-n770tf4gd5oc


BUT! BUT!!! Wait till Nvidia next gen GPUs are released, i highly recommend waiting.

I think I will wait for the next gen NVidias and see what comes of that...just a couple of weeks. I'd rather spend a bit more money and hopefully get another year or two out of it down the road.

I probably won't overclock since I don't know anything about it anyway, I just thought it was good insurance just in case. I see people going on about it all the time but I'm not sure the risk (overheating) is worth the performance gain (how much?).

Unless I'm completely missing something, you can skip the sound card because the motherboard has SPDIF output that will go to your Denon. I'd then use the ~$60 from that and apply it to a



The only other thing I might suggest is switching out the SSD to a Samsung. Other than that, it looks incredibly similar to my build and so far it's been fantastic. 👍

Good to know, about the sound card already having the digital audio. I was thinking about SimVibe though, and that requires a second sound card, 5.1 capable, so maybe I can get a second card and go cheaper on that. Samsung SSD it is then:tup:

@Johnnypenso Nice build. I would change to a Samsung SSD as well. Furthermore I personally had bad experiences with MSI hardware so I would look for ASUS motherboards.
And, one last note: your case fan selection is wrong, 'cause for this Corsair tower, you'll need 120mm ones or even 140mm in top of the case.
Oh, one very last note: you won't need a 750W PSU for that system. Look for 550-600W instead and no noname brand. Enermax would be a good choice for performancance and stability PSU wise.

The 750 was a package deal so the cost was about $20 less IIRC, thought it was a bit of future proofing, I hang on to stuff forever.

This is all very valuable advice guys, appreciate it.

 

[KingPing]

I probably won't overclock since I don't know anything about it anyway, I just thought it was good insurance just in case. I see people going on about it all the time but I'm not sure the risk (overheating) is worth the performance gain (how much?).

Not really worth it IMO. I have an i7 2600K, i did OC but after 1 year i left it stock because i didn't see any real benefit. I even have a C2Q Q9550 (a 6 year old CPU) which still runs pretty much everything.

 

[fatkrakr]

Good to know, about the sound card already having the digital audio. I was thinking about SimVibe though, and that requires a second sound card, 5.1 capable, so maybe I can get a second card and go cheaper on that. Samsung SSD it is then:tup:

If your going to use optical out for sound than you don't need a second sound card to run simvibe. That's how I have mine setup only using the motherboard sound. If you want 5.1 out of the digital out you just need to make sure the motherboard has dolby digital live. Works like a champ.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

So people are saying that you can't future proof a PC for 6 years and here's me with 6 year old RAM sticks, motherboard, PSU, CPU and sound card . Also, my 5-6 year old GPU is still able to play most of my games at 1080/40-50fps/low-mid settings, it's fun to see what it can still do. Admittedly I've never played extremely demanding games like Crisis.

Other than the GPU, which I upgraded in the past (HD4830@10% overclock to a HD7850@40% overclock), I still don't feel any need to upgrade the other parts of my system yet. My CPU (i7 920 overclocked from 2.66 to 4GHZ) is still going like a trooper and only needed a miniscule bump in voltage to reach a 50% overclock; stock 1.25v to 1.28v.

@Johnnypenso, You would only need to look into overclocking if your CPU is struggling or bottle necking your games by a small amount, or if you encode lots of lengthy videos. I needed to bump my CPU up a couple hundred extra MHZ when using a full field of cars on AC, and the difference in video encoding times between stock speeds and overclocked is huge.

 

[Speedster911]

"PC hardware - how will AC run" that's the thread's title, not "Console fanboy propaganda"

Cuse' me? "Fanboy" ??

Isn't derogative behavior along with terms like fanboy prohibited on these forums?

@daan

 

[Whitestar]

So people are saying that you can't future proof a PC for 6 years and here's me with 6 year old RAM sticks, motherboard, PSU, CPU and sound card . Also, my 5-6 year old GPU is still able to play most of my games at 1080/40-50fps/low-mid settings, it's fun to see what it can still do. Admittedly I've never played extremely demanding games like Crisis.

Other than the GPU, which I upgraded in the past (HD4830@10% overclock to a HD7850@40% overclock), I still don't feel any need to upgrade the other parts of my system yet. My CPU (i7 920 overclocked from 2.66 to 4GHZ) is still going like a trooper and only needed a miniscule bump in voltage to reach a 50% overclock; stock 1.25v to 1.28v.

@Johnnypenso, You would only need to look into overclocking if your CPU is struggling or bottle necking your games by a small amount, or if you encode lots of lengthy videos. I needed to bump my CPU up a couple hundred extra MHZ when using a full field of cars on AC, and the difference in video encoding times between stock speeds and overclocked is huge.

Agree 100%. You can play games for hundreds of years with a PC if you play games that are older than the PC, games that are newer within 2-3 years or games that are not that graphics demanding. Which is most games in existence really. Or, as you say, you can just keep playing if you lower settings. With the vast number of indie games coming out there's even less reason to spend money on upgrades if you don't really play the latest AAA games. Though, I guess what people mean with "future proof" involves being able to play the newest AAA titles on high to ultra settings. But anyway, like @Punknoodle and @TB say, enjoy the hell out of what you have. It's all good.

@Speedster911: This thread was meant to help people who are new to or not so familiar with PCs or looking to upgrade, with regards to Assetto Corsa. Whatever their budget, all the way from minimum specs to recommended and beyond. There are no PC Elitists/Masterclass/console hating people here (I hope), at least I'm not one. No one wants to start a PC/console war (with one possible exception) because we all know that that is just very very silly and 100% useless. We are on GTPlanet. A lot of people here owns a PS3 and would not be without it (including myself). Do take notice.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

If I can get 30% more performance for another $75 and it runs cooler i'd go for that, or maybe the older cards will drop in price. Seems like it will be something worth waiting for and I'm not in a hurry.

Worth going for the newer cards for performance improvement and temperature drops but also it will likely bridge the gap between AMD GPUs compute performance so if any games that take advantage of such features on PS4 and also PC, Maxwell based GPUs will likely outperform Kepler GPUs by a big margin as I wouldn't be surprised if PS4 can win in some tests against say the Nvidia GTX Titan and by a big margin. This is what I'm looking forward to the most is top console developers taking advantage of PS4's GPU compute performance.

Also Intel Broadwell is coming out end of the year (Not 100% sure if also for desktops), might be a bit late for you though but will reduce power consumption a lot and heat output, I'm think of upgrading to it while my Haswell stuff has some value so I can get a computer that runs at even lower temperatures and takes less power to run.

Nahh, if I'm going to own a PC, then I want one that can run everything on full for at least 6 years or more. Not possible, I know..bummer.

This is why I just stick to consoles. They fulfill the purpose nicely.

But consoles also struggle to do the same thing even at around launch for old remastered games, if you get a high end PC you can likely play better than consoles at higher settings in the same time frame. I personally prefer playing on consoles though, you usually have more people to play against and is more likely a fairer platform to play on.

Interesting though that my PC with budget CPU which is older than 6 years (nearly 7 years old) is more powerful than PS4 CPU and can play games like AC and pCARS fine at 1080p 60FPS given a reasonable budget GPU is used and reasonable settings IIRC. I originally had like now an 8 year old CPU that also would outperform the current consoles CPU and likely play current sim games fine. I currently have an over 7 year old budget GPU in that system that might be able to play Assetto Corsa very well. Total value of system was about £250 many years back. It is interesting though that I got a PS3 for a more higher price at similar time IIRC but it won't be able to play next-gen games gameplay while my PC with more CPU performance than PS4 and Xbox One will likely be able to.

 

[Speedster911]

@Saidur_Ali

Yeah consoles do struggle but one must admit how games start getting better optimized after 2 to 3 years. And mid-generation, they really start to showcase what it can do. I'm happy with the fact that I don't have to experiment with settings or optimize my machine to run games smoothly. Just pop in the disc, install, forget everything else and play for hours without any hitches.

More powerful than current gen consoles eh? That's pretty impressive and I say you're one of the lucky ones. PCARS running at 1080p with 60 fps, not a bad deal at all! What detail settings though? Are the details settings as high or even higher than the PS4 version?

How much of a graphical advantage do you really get to enjoy with multi-plat games? For example, if you were to play a similar game on your PC, how much better does it look or feel (fps) compared to the PS4 versions?

It looks like you're, for the most part, all set to enjoy what the best of gaming has to bring in the next 5 years.

I've just got my trusty ol' X360 at the moment, and quite content with it.

 

[ICEMAN_ZIDANE]

It's because AC is more CPU dependent, and it could be a bit better optimized.



"PC hardware - how will AC run" that's the thread's title, not "Console fanboy propaganda"

I know its not really good optimized (for example the CPU 100% Occupancy Problem) but iam running a i7 4790k. One of the fastest CPUs out there. The fps problem doesnt occur because of the CPU, it has to be bad optimization or a GPU problem.

 

[Pophead]

My *cough* amazing *cough* 6 year old computer can run Assetto with 2x anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering with maximum world detail and 6-ish ai at a solid 60FPS at 1680x1050.
CPU is an Core 2 Quad Q6600 clocked at 2.4GHZ, GTX 650 Ti and 8GB DDR2 ram.

Yet it runs Grid Autosport in near ultra at 50FPS with 12 AI no problem. Assetto needs more optimization.

Just saying that older pc's (at least like mine) can still run Assetto Corsa and make it look decent.

 

[Punknoodle]

I have an i5 4670K and GTX780 and I can of course have it maxed completely, but not if there are other cars on the track. For that I have to turn down the AA and some other stuff I don't understand down.

 

[TurismoBad]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/ybxhvK

I've thrown together some specs as I'm teetering on the edge of building my own PC now. Any feedback would be much appreciated, I don't want to have to do this again for a couple of years!! Nothing earth shattering there but a couple of notes.

-I left out an HDD because I have a 3TB external hard drive that I use for data storage and I don't download much to my primary hard drive. After 3 years I'm only using 100GB on my current HDD.
-The CPU and Video cards I chose from reading on the PCars and AC forums what guys are using at the moment to run the games on fairly high settings.
-The case I chose because I want to fit this into a custom cabinet I already built. The cabinet is 20"H/20"D/14" wide and it's completely open at the rear for ventilation and I open the front door when doing any serious gaming. I have an HP system now with an A10 AMD5800k CPU which is supposed to run hot but I have no issues with heat.
-The sound card I chose because it has a digital audio out. My sound system is about 10 years old but it's a good quality Denon receiver and I'd like to keep it and it only has digital audio inputs for dolby digital sound. I can go HDMI to the tv so I want to be able to switch between sound to the tv and sound to the Surround system gaming and watching movies. 5.1 is all I want or need.
-the power supply was a little large but it was a combo in this case so the price was good
-most of the Ram I chose had a compatibility issue with the CPU, running an extra .1-.15 volts.
-I'd like Windows 7 not Windows 8

I've looked up a couple of local custom builders and I'm going to see what they'll charge me to put it together as I know next to nothing about building a PC. If everything goes perfectly I can snap parts together as good as the next guy, but once something goes wrong I'm toast

There is an excellent thread on neogaf with builds for gaming - highly recommend giving it a read. Obviously - apply your own judgment.

In particular there is one thing in there I don't agree with.

Buying CPUs to overclock them - I just don't see much sense in this.

+ 20 $ for K cpu (unlocked) + 20/30$ for motherboard (it needs to support overclocking) + 10/20$ for better power supply (overclocked cpu's power consumption goes thru the roof) + 20/30$ for aftermarket heatsink = you end up paying 70/90$ more in order to be able to overclock your CPU to values similar to higher tier CPU - doesn't make sense.

On top of that if it's the case of overclocking i5 instead of buying i7 - you have less cores so worse future proofing.

See i7-4770 @ 260 €
Or i5-4690k @ 220 € + 20 (heatsink) + 20 € (motherboard) + 10€ (power supply) = 270 €

So you get lower performance, bigger power consumption and less cores for the same or higher price tag - just doesn't make sense.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Saidur_Ali

Yeah consoles do struggle but one must admit how games start getting better optimized after 2 to 3 years. And mid-generation, they really start to showcase what it can do. I'm happy with the fact that I don't have to experiment with settings or optimize my machine to run games smoothly. Just pop in the disc, install, forget everything else and play for hours without any hitches.

More powerful than current gen consoles eh? That's pretty impressive and I say you're one of the lucky ones. PCARS running at 1080p with 60 fps, not a bad deal at all! What detail settings though? Are the details settings as high or even higher than the PS4 version?

How much of a graphical advantage do you really get to enjoy with multi-plat games? For example, if you were to play a similar game on your PC, how much better does it look or feel (fps) compared to the PS4 versions?

It looks like you're, for the most part, all set to enjoy what the best of gaming has to bring in the next 5 years.

I've just got my trusty ol' X360 at the moment, and quite content with it.

The big difference between PC and console, to this point anyway, is the huge discrepancy in physics/FFB and the lack of customization of features and gameplay on consoles. One look at the Assetto Corsa menus reveals options one can only dream of on console, like setting the FFB for the road, slippage and kerbs separately. Or separate sliders for wind noise, road noise, tire noise etc. Or adjusting your cockpit view up/down/left/right/forwards/back and FOV while having it saved individually for every car. Coming mainly from the GT series this seems a revelation to me although PC gamers have known and enjoyed this for years. Project Cars and perhaps AC if it makes it to console, could change that and for the better IMO. With any luck some of that newfound adjustability will bleed into Forza/GT and make them better games too.

It really is a Pandora's Box situation for me. Console will always have the broader appeal due to it's ease of entry/plug and play nature and low maintenance and upkeep costs. But once you've tasted a Caramel Banana Split with fresh nuts, real whipped cream and cherries on top, it's hard to get back to that plain vanilla ice cream you get in that big, square, plastic tub. It'll do in a pinch of course, but if I have a choice, it's banana split all the way

 

[Speedster911]

The big difference between PC and console, to this point anyway, is the huge discrepancy in physics/FFB and the lack of customization of features and gameplay on consoles. One look at the Assetto Corsa menus reveals options one can only dream of on console, like setting the FFB for the road, slippage and kerbs separately. Or separate sliders for wind noise, road noise, tire noise etc. Or adjusting your cockpit view up/down/left/right/forwards/back and FOV while having it saved individually for every car. Coming mainly from the GT series this seems a revelation to me although PC gamers have known and enjoyed this for years. Project Cars and perhaps AC if it makes it to console, could change that and for the better IMO. With any luck some of that newfound adjustability will bleed into Forza/GT and make them better games too.

It really is a Pandora's Box situation for me. Console will always have the broader appeal due to it's ease of entry/plug and play nature and low maintenance and upkeep costs. But once you've tasted a Caramel Banana Split with fresh nuts, real whipped cream and cherries on top, it's hard to get back to that plain vanilla ice cream you get in that big, square, plastic tub. It'll do in a pinch of course, but if I have a choice, it's banana split all the way

Well now, you certainly get your point across rather well I'll say!

Don't understand why devs shy away from adding those features in console racing games. GA still has no adjustments for steering sensitivity, which I find plain silly.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well now, you certainly get your point across rather well I'll say!

Don't understand why devs shy away from adding those features in console racing games. GA still has no adjustments for steering sensitivity, which I find plain silly.

Using street terminology, I think console play is "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator so they are accessible to everyone. I think many of the more casual console players would simply be overwhelmed by all the options and adjustments available when all they want to do is jump in a car and drive. This is why Project Cars is such a welcome sign to me and has real potential for crossover, but at the same time, a huge risk on their part.

 

[Speedster911]

Right... why not just have a basic controls menu and an advanced one for us nitpickers? Kind of like Forza or Shift 2.

I think the word accessible is really getting lost in the mix.. games are getting dumbed down way too much as a result. It wasn't this bad over a decade ago from what I remember!

 

[Sele1981]

So I put my new PC together today. An Xeon 1231V3. Before that I had an Intel Q9450. I was getting CPU Occupancy 95% message when 16 cars were on the track. Now with the Xeon I tried 24 cars without a problem. But I tested it just 2 minutes. Maybe tomorrow I´ll give it a long run.

I was not expecting more fps because I was running the R9 280x in my older system too. But with the exact same settings I get about 20-30 more fps if I remember correctly. Will check it out tomorrow to get sure.

Also I got an 256GB SSD (MX100) and an ASRock H97 Pro4. Installed Win 8.1 Pro 64 Bit. With pressing the power button, it takes about 5 seconds until windows is loaded and ready. That is insane! There is also a fast boot option in the bios that suggest a boot time about 1.5 seconds (it skips the bios logo/screen). Also the Bios is very nice with mouse support.

What was insane too, I connected my old SSD with the Steam games on it to my new pc to copy the folders to the new SSD. 300 - 350 MB per second Dude I was so used to the 16 mb/s with that USB sticks and USB 2.0 external hard disks. That is impressive. So about 50GB were moved within 3 minutes or so.

 

[MegaJoshh]

i7 4790K, 16GB 2400mhz ram, 280X Crossfire..

Can't have everything maxed on 1080P, have to turn off depth of field or turn down AA to 4x

Everything maxed = 25-40 fps with no cars on track. No DoF = 70fps.

 

[Punknoodle]

i7 4790K, 16GB 2400mhz ram, 280X Crossfire..

Can't have everything maxed on 1080P, have to turn off depth of field or turn down AA to 4x

Everything maxed = 25-40 fps with no cars on track. No DoF = 70fps.

That's crazy, clearly improvements need to be made to the rendering code

 

[DarthBelan]

A good rule of thumb I've always used is buy the previous generation's vid card. When that latest and greatest hits the shelf, the price will drop on the previous cards. You'll still be set for 3-4 years worth of gaming. Your eyes don't require anything over 30 fps, which is what a movie typically runs at. 60 fps is just fine.

Also, don't buy into the SSD hype. It's good for an OS drive, but it doesn't do anything to improve performance in games, just load times. Basically, in online games, you'll be the first in the map, but you'll still be waiting on the others with HDD's to load in. Get a 120 GB SSD to load Windows on, that's all you'll need, until the prices drop. Also remember to move the virtual memory from the SSD to an HDD. VM will kill your SSD fairly quick with all the writing it does. I learned this form experience.

CPU, AMD or Intel, it doesn't matter, whatever you can afford. If buying an Intel means 5 more fps over AMD, does it really matter when you're running over 100 fps with both? No. IMO you get more bang for your buck with AMD's CPU's.

Use onboard sound. I actually use USB sound with headphones. I pipe game noise through my speakers, and voice chat through my headphones. Adds to the immersion with whatever game I play.

Don't go cheap on ram, you'll want good timings. Name brand (it doesn't matter which) gaming performance.

PSU, I'd go with what will let you SLI, you may want to buy that second card eventually.

 

[Sele1981]

I completely disagree with you @DarthBelan

I bought an used R9 280x for a damn good price. Actually the same price as an used 7950HD costs. And the card still have guarantee where an older card is mostly without.

The difference from 30 fps to 60 fps is there. Especially in racing games. Play shift and then GT. You see the difference immediately.

SSD is worth the money. Windows loads in seconds. Games start damn fast and there are almost no loading times. In Assetto Corsa I can start a race with 24 AI cars within 10-20 seconds. With an HDD it took about 30-40 seconds. You can get an 256GB SSD for 80-90 bucks. Put on you favourite games on the SSD and the ones you play less on an second HDD.

CPU, AMD or Intel, doesn´t matter? Even AMD fanboys agree that AMD CPU´s are actually worse. Invest 50 bucks more and go with an actual I5 or even an Xeon and you are safe for about 4 years.

About sound, I use HDMI so I cant say anything about that.

SLI is not recmmended. It gives you micro stuttering and it sucks extremely power. You need to invest in an expensive mainboard and an expensive power supply. With an actual graphics card you are good to go. There is no need for SLI when you have an old card. Just sell it, pay 50 bucks on that what you get for your old card and buy a new card.

 

[Whitestar]

I completely disagree with you @DarthBelan

I bought an used R9 280x for a damn good price. Actually the same price as an used 7950HD costs. And the card still have guarantee where an older card is mostly without.

The difference from 30 fps to 60 fps is there. Especially in racing games. Play shift and then GT. You see the difference immediately.

SSD is worth the money. Windows loads in seconds. Games start damn fast and there are almost no loading times. In Assetto Corsa I can start a race with 24 AI cars within 10-20 seconds. With an HDD it took about 30-40 seconds. You can get an 256GB SSD for 80-90 bucks. Put on you favourite games on the SSD and the ones you play less on an second HDD.

CPU, AMD or Intel, doesn´t matter? Even AMD fanboys agree that AMD CPU´s are actually worse. Invest 50 bucks more and go with an actual I5 or even an Xeon and you are safe for about 4 years.

About sound, I use HDMI so I cant say anything about that.

SLI is not recmmended. It gives you micro stuttering and it sucks extremely power. You need to invest in an expensive mainboard and an expensive power supply. With an actual graphics card you are good to go. There is no need for SLI when you have an old card. Just sell it, pay 50 bucks on that what you get for your old card and buy a new card.

Agree with you on everything except the SLI bit.

EDIT: Also, on the CPU side, it depends largely on the game, brand optimizations, whether it's CPU dependent, etc.
http://www.techspot.com/review/837-intel-core-i7-4790k-devils-canyon/page6.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/...view-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/6

 

[Speedster911]

Since I'm a former PC gamer, I just want to add:

@DarthBelan The difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is practically day and night. Play any racing game or shooter, and you will clearly feel the difference. 60 fps feels completely "real", buttery smooth and fluid. For one thing, it also gives you less eye strain. Every time I go from a 60 fps to 30 fps console game, my eyes half-bleed. It just feels laggy by comparison. BTW, movies are even more stuttery than 30 fps games since they run at 24 fps. For sound, HDMI going out to speakers is the best way to game. However, if you have a high quality surround headset, you're all set.

@Sele1981 You're absolutely on the money. Intel's CPUs are definitely more reliable and future proof. AMD boasts good performance, but not quite as good as Intel's, which also last longer. Can you tell me what SSD is? Will consoles be taking advantage of this in the not too distant future? I will definitely private IM you in case I ever plan on buying a new PC. 👍

 

[Whitestar]

Intel's CPUs are definitely more reliable and future proof. AMD boasts good performance, but not quite as good as Intel's, which also last longer. Can you tell me what SSD is? Will consoles be taking advantage of this in the not too distant future? I will definitely private IM you in case I ever plan on buying a new PC. 👍

I have to admit I haven't seen any reliability statistics or surveys. I found one that seems to indicate that there isn't any difference at stock speed: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...-pc-failures-results-shatter-enthusiast-myths. If you are going to make statements like that, then please back it up with links.

On SSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive
You could replace the internal HDD (hard disk) in the PS3 with one, but I don't think there was much gain to be had in so many games. Here is one test on PS4 with SSD installed: http://www.ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/PlayStation_4_Hard_Drive_Speed_Test_Comparison

 

[Sele1981]

Since I'm a former PC gamer, I just want to add:

@DarthBelan The difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is practically day and night. Play any racing game or shooter, and you will clearly feel the difference. 60 fps feels completely "real", buttery smooth and fluid. For one thing, it also gives you less eye strain. Every time I go from a 60 fps to 30 fps console game, my eyes half-bleed. It just feels laggy by comparison. BTW, movies are even more stuttery than 30 fps games since they run at 24 fps. For sound, HDMI going out to speakers is the best way to game. However, if you have a high quality surround headset, you're all set.

@Sele1981 You're absolutely on the money. Intel's CPUs are definitely more reliable and future proof. AMD boasts good performance, but not quite as good as Intel's, which also last longer. Can you tell me what SSD is? Will consoles be taking advantage of this in the not too distant future? I will definitely private IM you in case I ever plan on buying a new PC. 👍

In GT5 a SSD was shorting loading times. But for an console, I would not buy an SSD. The advantage on an console is not that huge to be worth the money. But on Windows for example, my brand new PC (builded it on friday) boots up to Win 8.1 in 3-5 seconds and is ready to use. When I think back to my old machine (windows 7). The booting took 2 minutes until the hard disk finished loading and windows was ready to go. And then you click on Chrome and have to wait another 30 seconds until chrome is usable. And it was a clean windows. Only AC installed. But to be fair, it was an old HDD with IDE connector. I don´t know how an actual SATA HDD performs. But anyway, a SSD is abolutely silent. I hate that loading noises from HDD´s.

 

[Snaeper]

I can only imagine the power savings you get over the long run on your PC by using an SSD. It easily discounts itself because that's a lot of time cut down on your PC sucking power without even being usable.

 

[Lawndart]

So I hooked up 3 monitors (gw2760hs 1080p) to a titan black on my 4 year old i5 and fired up Assetto for the first time...

Omg 85 FPS! And this game has more potential than Pcars... Yes Pcars is more complete but Assetto is totally open ended and embraces gran turismo type features.

The future is brighter than ever for racing games!

 

[Speedster911]

85 fps, really?!!

At full detail levels?