Jump to content

Need help building new computer for DCS


Recommended Posts

Here's what I got. Now let me know what you think.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/Darkangel11/saved/dNqqsY

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

I personally don't think you'll be able to perceive any performance difference between a barely overclocked 6600k and a stock 6500. On a benchmark, sure there will be a 10-15% difference, but it's not perceivable if you are getting 80fps or 85 or even 100fps. Especially on a 60hz screen. Anything over 60fps looks smooth. And all of the builds will get you over 60fps easily with reasonable settings.

 

(With this set up I don't think it's possible to overclock far enough to make it worthwhile. To get to 4Ghz+ you'd need motherboard that can handle it, as well as 750W powersupply - otherwise you might get stability issues, crashes, reboots etc).

 

 

Overclocking on a budget doesn't make sense to me, unless it's just for fun and you like fiddling with this stuff. Overclocking really is only worthwhile if you've bought upper end gear, and you still want/need more grunt.

 

On a budget you end up paying quite a lot of money just to make your PC overclockable and stable, when you could have just spent the money on faster parts, instead of spending money additional equipment to make slower parts faster.

 

To me it makes more sense just to put the money into components that are already faster in their stock form, and have a reliable PC so you can just play without tinkering or worrying about it.

 

The new build you have is fine, but I still wouldn't recommend overclocking it as I don't see the point. It will in it's default form run DCS at around 80+ fps when you are in the air (with a combination of high-med-low settings).Overclocking might get you another 10 frames on top of that which doesn't seem worth it in time or money to me, especially if it's running over 60fps most of the time.

 

 

I'd also go with the largest monitor you can afford, every inch extra makes the cockpit more readable and more functional, and you won't have zoom in/out as much.

 

 

Just for reference I'm running a GTX 970, which is slightly slower than a GTX 1060, and a i5 3570K at stock speed (3.4Ghz) which is 3 generations older than the i5 6500. And I'm getting anywhere between 60-120fps depending on what's happening. Using a combination of low/med/high settings. (busy airports/runways can still drop to around 40fps, but I don't spend much time on ground :)) And I have 8Gb RAM as well.

 

So I figure if I'm getting this kind of performance then an i5 6500 and GTX 1060 will give you the same at least, or better. It will certainly be smooth performance, and with the extra 3" monitor you'll have a more pleasant experience too.:D

 

 

Don't worry about it too much though, either your latest build or my build will give good performance, overclocked or not.:thumbup:

 

 

HDD ??? unless you have a SSD waiting for those parts you better put the money from the monitor into a SSD and/or skip the HDD for now, use an old drive for now etc...

 

SSD will definitely be a nice thing in the future if you can afford it. It won't improve your frame rate performance, but it will shorten your loading times by big amount.


Edited by TomOnSteam

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cockpit Spectator Mode

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally don't think you'll be able to perceive any performance difference between a barely overclocked 6600k and a stock 6500. On a benchmark, sure there will be a 10-15% difference, but it's not perceivable if you are getting 80fps or 85 or even 100fps. Especially on a 60hz screen. Anything over 60fps looks smooth. And all of the builds will get you over 60fps easily with reasonable settings.

 

(With this set up I don't think it's possible to overclock far enough to make it worthwhile. To get to 4Ghz+ you'd need motherboard that can handle it, as well as 750W powersupply - otherwise you might get stability issues, crashes, reboots etc).

 

 

Overclocking on a budget doesn't make sense to me, unless it's just for fun and you like fiddling with this stuff. Overclocking really is only worthwhile if you've bought upper end gear, and you still want/need more grunt.

 

On a budget you end up paying quite a lot of money just to make your PC overclockable and stable, when you could have just spent the money on faster parts, instead of spending money additional equipment to make slower parts faster.

 

To me it makes more sense just to put the money into components that are already faster in their stock form, and have a reliable PC so you can just play without tinkering or worrying about it.

 

The new build you have is fine, but I still wouldn't recommend overclocking it as I don't see the point. It will in it's default form run DCS at around 80+ fps when you are in the air (with a combination of high-med-low settings).Overclocking might get you another 10 frames on top of that which doesn't seem worth it in time or money to me, especially if it's running over 60fps most of the time.

 

 

I'd also go with the largest monitor you can afford, every inch extra makes the cockpit more readable and more functional, and you won't have zoom in/out as much.

 

 

Just for reference I'm running a GTX 970, which is slightly slower than a GTX 1060, and a i5 3570K at stock speed (3.4Ghz) which is 3 generations older than the i5 6500. And I'm getting anywhere between 60-120fps depending on what's happening. Using a combination of low/med/high settings. (busy airports/runways can still drop to around 40fps, but I don't spend much time on ground :)) And I have 8Gb RAM as well.

 

So I figure if I'm getting this kind of performance then an i5 6500 and GTX 1060 will give you the same at least, or better. It will certainly be smooth performance, and with the extra 3" monitor you'll have a more pleasant experience too.:D

 

 

Don't worry about it too much though, either your latest build or my build will give good performance, overclocked or not.

 

 

 

 

SSD will definitely be a nice thing in the future if you can afford it. It won't improve your frame rate performance, but it will shorten your loading times by big amount.

Well then to save money and still get the same result I'm thinking of going with the setup you helped me with

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was on the notes. Is this a concern or not?

 

 

MSI B150M MORTAR Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard has an onboard USB 3.0 header, but the NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case does not have front panel USB 3.0 ports

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
This was on the notes. Is this a concern or not?

 

 

MSI B150M MORTAR Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard has an onboard USB 3.0 header, but the NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case does not have front panel USB 3.0 ports

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

Only if you want USB 3.0 on the front ports of your PC. You can just pick a different ATX mid case (not MicroATX) if it's something you want :)

(otherwise you'll only have the 4x USB 3.0 ports on the back of the PC, and you'll have to make the front ones USB 2.0 only)

 

Either way you'll have a total of 8 USB ports, if you need more than 4 of those to be 3.0 ports then pick another case.

 

EDIT: actually going by the manufacturers website, one of the front ports supports USB 3.0 - and one is only version 2.0.


Edited by TomOnSteam

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cockpit Spectator Mode

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only if you want USB 3.0 on the front ports of your PC. You can just pick a different ATX mid case (not MicroATX) if it's something you want :)

(otherwise you'll only have the 4x USB 3.0 ports on the back of the PC, and you'll have to make the front ones USB 2.0 only)

 

Either way you'll have a total of 8 USB ports, if you need more than 4 of those to be 3.0 ports then pick another case.

 

EDIT: actually going by the manufacturers website, one of the front ports supports USB 3.0 - and one is only version 2.0.

What's the difference between having a USB 3.0 and 2.0?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the difference between having a USB 3.0 and 2.0?

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

If that's your question, then that tells me you won't need to worry about it :)

 

Some newer peripherals such as external USB hard-drives will have USB 3.0 support only. USB 3.0 is much much faster than USB 2.0, but only if the peripheral itself is 3.0 (it doesn't speed up any 2.0 devices).

 

But anything USB 2.0 also works with USB 3.0 ports, so older things will keep working on the newer ports.

 

The default 4x version 3.0 ports will be plenty to future proof yourself.

 

You can always buy an extra card with more USB 3.0 ports if required.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cockpit Spectator Mode

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...