My graphics card has decided to move to the next spiritual level of its life.
My HD, at 100Gb, is also tiny for today needs.
So, instead of paying extra money for a new graphics card and HDD on a 8 yrs old motherboard, i am probably going for a new pc ( ouch! ).
I am thinking of getting the following, among else:
Processor: AMD Quad Core 3.2Ghz
RAM: 4 Gb DDR3
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon 6770
1. Do you have any advise? Something to avoid? I already know i 'll have to make a new shortcut to force the game using one processor only. Any other comments regarding processors / quad cores etc?
2. Is it better to prefer a similar NVidia graphics card, instead of an ATI Radeon 6770, in relation to how the SC4 mechanics work?
3. Does any relation exist to RAM size and plugins folder size? I nearly have around 4 Gigs of plugins. Does this have anything to do with how RAM is used?
Thank you in advance :-)
if you can afford it... go for 2x4gb for RAM, 8GB is the new 4gb.
Thank you Kitsune. I appreciate it.
I am thinking of this indeed. It's around 30€, more or less, so it's somewhat doable.
nza_arch, keep also in mind that SC4 only uses 1 core. If the main game you play is SC4, I would go for a powerful dual core. That way your game will still be running on half your processors capacity, as opposed to only a quarter with a quad.
Thank you TiFlo.
That is indeed an issue of concern.
I am trying to evaluate this too.
I understand the issue, although i am not very knowledgeable on the exact mechanics of how a dual core and a quad core would run, related to SC4.
Can you please ( or someone running SC4 in quad core ) give me a little more info on this?
I understand i may be fighting in two different opposite paths, trying to run fast an old-mechanics game, when nowadays processors tend to be quad core or even hexa-core and so on. It's just that ( indeed ) SC4 is the main game i play ( :drooling: ), so i also want to get the best possible for it.
Thank you :-) I appreciate it.
I am using a three year old quad-core AMD Phenom 9600 2.3GHz, with 6gigs of DDR2 1024 RAM and Vista 64. NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT video card. In it's day, it was very fast.
Your proposed build is much faster.
Even running duel monitors, I had no performance issues with about 3gigs or plugins. Ocasionaly it will lag a bit when panning, so I run clouds, shadows, and vehicles on medium. Everything else is on high.
You will have no complaints running a quad core.
I recomend you make a desktop shortcut for the game. Right click the shortcut, select "properties," and edit the Target so it reads like this;
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Maxis\SimCity 4 Deluxe\Apps\SimCity 4.exe" -intro:off -CustomResolution:enabled -r1920x1200x32 -f -CPUCount:1
in order of commands this will;
launch the game
turn off into
give you a nice HD widescreen render for your shiny new monitor ;)
play the game in full screen (replace -f with -w for windowed mode)
set the CPU affinity to 1
Thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution :-)
I am leaning towards a quad core, as a step that will last a bit more. I don't change processor ( i wish i was ) every two years, so, it's a pc i 'll try to keep a little more.
SC4 is the main application i run at my free time. Main as much as this can get, lol.
Still, i also run AutoCad, as the main application at my non - free time, he he he. AutoCad, rendering specifically are huge processor - eaters; i hope quad core will help on rendering.
Thank you very much. I am pretty much deciding what i ''ll go for, considering the money i want to spend also :)
So, by now, what i am thinking is:
Processor: AMD Quad Core 3.2Ghz
RAM: 8 Gb DDR3
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon 6770
Wish me luck; going to order it tomorrow :-)
No more New Year's / Birthday presents for three yrs from now, lol. So, next birthday present at 2014 :)
Thank you all. I appreciate the advise.
if you do lots of rendering, you might be better off with an AMD 6-core (or if you've won the lottery, a 6-core i7 :P)
actually... if your using auto-cad, an i5 or i7 may be pricer... but its worth it. And some are hyper-threaded so you get 4 cores and 4 virtual cores. If your not going to overclock, go with a non-k model.
Quote from: nza_arch on September 05, 2011, 09:22:44 AM
Still, i also run AutoCad, as the main application at my non - free time, he he he. AutoCad, rendering specifically are huge processor - eaters; i hope quad core will help on rendering.
I run often run Mathematica, R (or sometimes Matlab), and a virtual boxed Linux thats runs a bunch of Pearl scripts all at the same time. My machine just hammers through all of it with no problem, even when I do large simulations that entail alot (millions) of probability matrices. There is a noticeble difference in performance when I can use sparse matrices, but its fine.
You will be quite happy with a quad core 3.2. Check with the documentation for Autocad to make sure it even supports multi-cores. Only the latest version of Mathematica does with out writting in some script, so Autocad might have the same issue.
All that said, I am seriously considering upgrading to a 6core machine myself...
Quote from: joshua43214 on September 05, 2011, 05:42:04 PM
Quote from: nza_arch on September 05, 2011, 09:22:44 AM
Still, i also run AutoCad, as the main application at my non - free time, he he he. AutoCad, rendering specifically are huge processor - eaters; i hope quad core will help on rendering.
I run often run Mathematica, R (or sometimes Matlab), and a virtual boxed Linux thats runs a bunch of Pearl scripts all at the same time. My machine just hammers through all of it with no problem, even when I do large simulations that entail alot (millions) of probability matrices. There is a noticeble difference in performance when I can use sparse matrices, but its fine.
You will be quite happy with a quad core 3.2. Check with the documentation for Autocad to make sure it even supports multi-cores. Only the latest version of Mathematica does with out writting in some script, so Autocad might have the same issue.
All that said, I am seriously considering upgrading to a 6core machine myself...
So am i... but I'm waiting till haswell even though its another year + away. Hopefully my motherboard doesnt blow a cap in the meantime.
Quote from: WC_EEND on September 05, 2011, 10:00:18 AM
if you do lots of rendering, you might be better off with an AMD 6-core (or if you've won the lottery, a 6-core i7 :P)
I would sincerely agree with this... I have 3 of them as a render farm for 3DS Max stuff and they really prod buttock. 8GB RAM is a must, as is Windows 7 x64