Gaming computer

Don't really know anything about them. What type of computer would I need to play a game like this,
http://www.iracing.com/membership/system-requirements/ Will this computer do?. http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=878496299
If not what would be the best way to go.
thx

geek_differentthings, Apr 28, 9:36 am

That game isn't demanding at all. Pretty much any modern computer with a dedicated video card would be fine.

Something like this would be fine if $500 or so is your budget:
http://www.trademe.co.nz/computers/desktops/no-monitor/auction-877596845.htm

But I'd personally go to Computer Lounge and see what they can do for oyu.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 11:20 am

That CPU is 3.5 years old
That graphics card is close to 7 years old

Regardless of whether or not it'll run (the game is very undemanding) that system isn't a good deal

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 11:38 am

Er GTX 750 was released last year, i5-2400 is a little older but still good for the price.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 12:06 pm



Was in reply to the first post

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 12:13 pm

Ah my bad.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 12:18 pm


ep this one is (just) inside my budget. I have a HDMI TV (32") that I want to use and I also want to run a 3 screen setup in the near future. Is that posible with that computer. thx.

geek_differentthings, Apr 28, 1:35 pm

That PC doesn't look particularly good value. Get onto pricespy and built one. Also get an SSD, as it will speed it up a lot

geek_richardw13, Apr 28, 1:41 pm

GTX 750 couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, overall a very weak poor value for money video card, R7 260x is much better for the same price. OP please do some research (non biased review sites) before taking advice from Nvidia fanboys.

geek_honeysacat, Apr 28, 2:26 pm

Ha biased review sites

The 260x is indeed faster than a vanilla 750 (actually a little faster than a 750 TI for some things) but there isn't necessarily a lot in it

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 2:35 pm



Every review site I'm looking at shows the GTX750 to perform better than the 260x. So I guess every single review site is bias.

That, and the AMD card uses an extra 65 watts. to perform worse! Typical AMD.

Edit: I found one benchmark that showed the 260 to perform a few percent better than the 750. Worth the extra heat, noise and power draw? I doubt it. The 750 runs 99% of the time with no fans and uses very little power.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 2:55 pm

Forget Trademe - too many cowboys. Too many poor quality parts. Too many don't know whats important in a gaming PC.

Go with the good after sales service, the good parts, the proper warranty on parts - none of this 1 yr rubbish.

http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/systems/systems.asp

geek_lythande1, Apr 28, 3:25 pm

lol no fans that's a good one. My GTX 960 was advertised to not use fans when its idle but whenever I look they are always spinning, Just more Nvidia BS marketing just like the 3.5GB GTX 970 advertised as 4GB.

geek_honeysacat, Apr 28, 3:26 pm

No it is a 4GB card, it's a matter of the last 500MB performing slowly

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 3:35 pm



I have a GTX960 in the computer beside me. I just played GTA5 on the highest settings for 3 hours. The fans didn't spin once.

My last card was a 750Ti. I never saw the fans spin up once in that either.

Please stop lying to try and make a point. It's sad.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 5:20 pm

GTX 960 playing GTA5 at the highest settings that's a good joke, who's lying now.

geek_honeysacat, Apr 28, 5:29 pm

Well yes I could be lying. But then you could look at any number of benchmarks online to confirm it.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 5:35 pm

GTA V is a pretty good fit for medium textures on a GTX 960 - it isn't enough card to push it up higher than that

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 6:30 pm



I've got all mine set to very high, 1440p, max AA. Never drops below 60fps. In saying that I do have a very high end CPU as well.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 6:56 pm

OK you got me, just checked my fans again now and they are indeed not spinning, the first time I have ever seen this.
Please accept my sincerest apologies.

geek_honeysacat, Apr 28, 7:13 pm

I think we may have got side tracked again

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 9:31 pm



The OP has already been directed to Computer Lounge, as usual, so crisis averted. Thread is now open territory.

I find the "controversy" around the memory of the GTX 970 funny, considering most of those people complaining will probably never utilize that final half gig anyway. If they had just advertised it at 3.5GB, no one would have even blinked, even at the same price.

geek_schizoid, Apr 28, 10:07 pm

Yeah exactly. Generally more than 2GB of memory is pointless.

I got the 2GB Gigabyte overclocked version. Faster clock speed is far more useful than more memory.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 10:15 pm

Depends on the came - some new games are very memory hungry

geek_vtecintegra, Apr 28, 10:47 pm



This may have been relevant when that article was released in 2012, but there are a hell of a lot of games since then that utilize more than 2GB of memory.

geek_cube_guy, Apr 28, 11:12 pm

Depends on your resolution. At 1080p not many games are going to push 2GB.

geek_schizoid, Apr 28, 11:23 pm

Fair call, I didn't notice the date. However the games they tested and the hardware they used is still very relevant.

Here's a more recent test that has the following conclusion.

"If you own a 1 GB card and a 1080p display, there's probably no need to upgrade right this very moment. A 2 GB card would let you turn on more demanding AA settings in most games though, so consider that a minimum benchmark if you're planning a new purchase and want to enjoy the latest titles at 1920x1080.

As you scale up to 1440p, 1600p, 2160p or multi-monitor configurations, start thinking beyond 2 GB if you also want to use MSAA. Three gigabytes becomes a better target (or multiple 3 GB+ cards in SLI/CrossFire)."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694
-5.html

So more than 2GB would still be a waste for most people unless using multiple high res displays.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 28, 11:38 pm



Off topic but, you aren't the same Schizoid on Ars Technica by any chance?

geek_lugee, Apr 29, 2:07 am

You won't find anything that'll game on 3 monitors for under $500. Anywhere.

What you could do is buy this for now so you'll know how it will run with your current setup (game + steering wheel), then save for the tri-monitor setup you're gearing towards: http://www.trademe.co.nz/computers/desktops/no-monitor/auction-878475040.htm

geek_lostdude, Apr 29, 10:23 am



sorry no I am not.

geek_schizoid, Apr 29, 10:31 am

I'm not talking about people playing at 4K. That's still a limited market. I'm referring to the majority of users that are playing at 1080p or 1440p. And the several links I posted back up my thoughts.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 29, 10:35 am

Well I run 1080p and setting all graphics to very high pushes VRAM to almost 3GB.

geek_lostdude, Apr 29, 11:17 am

Hrm interesting. I have the GTX960 2GB card, run 1440p with all settings to very high (except not all the AAs maxed out, can't remember which), and it doesn't drop below 60fps with vsync on. I haven't checked memory usage but it definitely isn't struggling.

I do have the 5930K very overlocked and 32GB of RAM so I don't know if that helps the video card do it's job or not.

geek_suicidemonkey, Apr 29, 11:49 am


Thanks. $299 is in my price range and if it will play my game that is about all I really care about. thx for ya help.

geek_differentthings, Jan 3, 5:19 pm

Share this thread