Hardware advice.

[Hanny]

Well the sales season is soon on us and Hanny wants a new toy...so what rig should i go for?, double or quad cpu?, which graphic card and why?. is vista as bad as people mention or should i stick with XP.

Whats your take on the current hardware, and will do me for the next 2/3 years. Around the £500 mark.

 

[slowcar]

there are almost no games that support a quad cpu, imo it is wasted money.
civ is not so very dependant on graphics, all middle class cards are more then fine.
i run vista and have no more problems with ffh2 compared to xp. i like some of its small improvements, no suggestion from me here.

any more in depth discussion is even more off topic here, i would suggest you take a look at pages like anandtech.com or tomshardware.com etc, most also have forums where a whole bunch of hardware-disciples follow their religion.

 

[Grey Fox]

I'd probably wait for Windows 7 instead of vista unless you have a specific reason to want vista.

Can't really suggest any hardware since I am not very up to date on whats what and stuff.

I'd suggest you take slowcar's advice about going to a specific site like the ones he mentioned.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

the issue here is that civ is designed to work on single cores, so a dual/quad core won't do you any good. since single core rigs are obsolete right now though, I recommend you get one with the best dual core processor you can afford, that should work good. definitely get a 64-bit OS and 4 gigs of ram if you can, that will greatly reduce MAF issues. if civ is the only game you play, you can get a mediocre video card and save yourself some money

 

[RogueThunder]

there are almost no games that support a quad cpu, imo it is wasted money.
civ is not so very dependant on graphics, all middle class cards are more then fine.
i run vista and have no more problems with ffh2 compared to xp. i like some of its small improvements, no suggestion from me here.

any more in depth discussion is even more off topic here, i would suggest you take a look at pages like anandtech.com or tomshardware.com etc, most also have forums where a whole bunch of hardware-disciples follow their religion.

There are some minor issues with Vista and FFH/FF. Mostly related to multilayer games.
As for games supporting quad core. Yeah... A number do now. But they're mostly RTS and high end FPS.

As for graphics. It all depends IMO on how much you are aiming to spend. An 8800GT/9800GT isn't a huge investment(~100$ here in the usa), and is a VERY nice card. As is the HD4830. But a 9600GT or HD4650/70 is more than sufficient. Stay away from Geforce 9500's they are low end, not mid. Just in a subtle disguise...
That said, even a 8600GTS/HD3670 would be a fine card. Although for FFH/FF I STRONGLY urge it be a 512MB card. Lest you chance issues with large/huge maps.
Tomshardware which was mentioned above, is a good place for comparing the performance of these cards---although note their benchmarks tend to be a little ways off real world, they are correct in relive with each other, so you can use them to compare hardware. Just don't expect your numbers to match theirs.

If you want to go vista. Go vista all the way. X64. 4GB of ram(Or more, if you feel like it). And you wont regret it. It's a VERY nice OS on systems that can completely shrug off its heightened demand for resources. And so far as I've seen, is less buggy than XP64.
If you don't feel like going x64, I suggest XP. Yes, not all of the 4GB of ram you'll likely slap in the system will be put to use... But heck. DDR2 is dirt cheap nowadays.

Cpu nowadays... Stick to a recent dualcore thats 2.4ghz or faster(So no old pentium-D's or old 90nm Ath x2's which while capible, run a bit hot...) and you're unlikely to have a problem. Currently Core2duo's go faster, but at your price mark, its mostly transparent.

Lastly, get a solid motherboard and psu. I made the mistake of going with a semi-budget third-party board. And while its a very nice board... There are a few issues with it. (Freaking sound card... and utter lack of tech support)
Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, Biostar, XFX, EVGA and such make great boards.
Stay away from jetway/foxconn/pcchips.

I built my system this last spring, for 700$ USD. And thats after ~150$ in iritating extra costs.
Specs
Ath x2 5000+ BE (2.6ghz stock, got it running 2.8ghz generally)
(NOTE!!!: Black editions, even retail box, do NOT come with a heatsink/fan, other retail boxes do)
Galaxy 8800GT 512MB GDDR3
ECS ATI 770 based motherboard. (Good board... crappy drivers. Horrible tech support.)
4GB Corsair XMS2 800mhz DDR2 (4x1GB modules. Caught it on sale, would a gotten 2x2GB if it had been on sale at the time)
2x 500GB hdd (One segate, one western digital...)
500W thermaltake PSU
Some DVDRW or other...


Hopefully I didn't overload ya XD... I'm a bit of a hardware geek... so I geek out on it a bit XD...

 

[Hanny]

http://www.eclipsecomputers.com/systemview.aspx?id=37&mscat=279

Heres where im currently looking, in was going to go with a 3.0 cpu upgrade, 4 gig ram, can always throw another 4 meg on later, and 2 graphic cards, the 9600, rather than the 9500 after reading the above post. Since i dont do FPS i dont need high end, total war is about as resouce hungry as im going to get. Already got a nice monitor so dont plan to change that.

Q what does haveing 2 cards do for me?, rather than a single better one?.

 

[slowcar]

dual graphic cards are nonsense for all but the most top edge gamers. nearly all middle class cards have a less expensive single competitor card that offers better price/value.
why anybody wants to have two 8600 cards (which are like two generations old) is beyond me, total nonsense.

if you have just the slightest bit of computer related ability i would not buy a shelf pc.
they have flashy numbers but save money at every opportunity, are often not well configured and noisy.

people without the skills to put their own machine together should rely on the service that bigger shops offer: assemble the parts you selected. its likely $50 or something, but you can select quality hardware.

go and try one of the hardware-happy-forums, there are a lot of people that love to spend their time putting together advises for the like of you.

my own current system (9 months old now, was about 800&#8364:
antec p180 midi tower
BE Quiet! Dark Power 450W (i think)
msi something board
dualcore e8200 2,6ghz
xigmatek cpu cooler
nvidia gforce 9600gt
3gb kingston ram
500gb western digital hdd
logitech g5 mouse
logitech standard black keyboard
windows vista ultimate 32bit (not included in above price)

a good power supply and cpu cooler are mandatory if you don't want to feel like an airport when you press the power button.
i have no additional silence stuff and can easily sleep 1m near my running computer (if there is a download finishing).

i would buy the exact same system again, nowadays with a current graphics card, of course. to have a silent PC was and is one of my main priorities.

i run it with a 24" and a 22" tft as well as a 720p beamer.

 

[Sarisin]

My system is similar to slowcars except I just have an ATI 512mb video card and 4 gb of RAM. I use Vista Home Premium.

I always play on Huge land maps with the default number of civs. I find the game runs fine until I get around Turn 600 in epic speed (390 more turns to go!). Then, stuff starts happening. More time between turns. Memory Allocation Failures. I'm also getting WOCs and CTDs playing the modmod FF (but I didn't get those in FFH and the guys there are ironing those problems out).

The point is it depends on whether or not you are an 'extreme' FFHer or not. If you like to play the huge maps with a ton of civs, I think you might find some problems no matter what your rig is. If you play smaller maps, less civs, etc. I think you can get by quite nicely with the setup I have or less.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I read the most cost-effective way to increase performance was by adding RAM, so I'd start there. You can pick up a couple Gigs for about $100.

 

[Breez]

there are almost no games that support a quad cpu, imo it is wasted money.

GTA 4

Unrunnable on single core and not good on Dual cores. only the Quad cores are running it decently... regardless of video card for the reviews I read.

 

[HadesScorn]

Couple of options.

Some feedback on the PC you linked to above:
-4 gigs of memory will be the MOST you can use in this PC ever. Making one of the neat features of Vista and Windows 7 never available.
-667Mhz RAM is fairly low-spec.
-There is never a good reason to use SLI. Avoid whenever possible. Overpriced, under-performing.
-3.5" floppy? They still make those?
-500w is NOT enough for gaming. Period.


As mentioned above, if you are confident at your hardware skills, buying individual parts from a site like Newegg will drastically improve the bang for your buck. One thing you want to consider is future upgrade paths- what you build today can be 50% better tomorrow if you pop in a few simple upgrades.

I worked off Newegg.com for this list using 750$ as my cap [based on 1.5048 exchange rate of 14DEC08].

-Thermaltake's Cases have always treated me well, keeping my machine running cool. This one for price. If you want to splurge, check out their Armor series- i knocked around 5C off my system heat when I switched to one!
-Asus Motherboards are reliable and come with good documentation. This one has several important features, including a FBS of 2600mhz and a possible 8 gigs of ram- a needed upgrade path over the next four years.
-For now, I'd just get a dual-core processor. The Mobo will allow you to upgrade in the future, and the games you are playing don't need anything higher than this.
-Best bang for your buck when it comes to a HD. I've got two in my system right now, looking to get a third.
-I've been using G-Skill Ram lately with good results. Two of these should suffice.
-I like to go all out with my Power Supply. Whatever you do get, make sure it is MODULAR. Makes cable management much easier.
-I haven't shopped Video Cards in a while, but I'm running a very old 512 EVGA card with no problems.
-DVD drives are really cheap nowadays.
-I'll assume that you are reusing your keyboard and mouse, along with whatever speaker set you have.
-If you want, you can pick up a sound card but I'd suggest using the Mobo's built in system for now until you can get a good card.
There you have it, a modern system for US$712 plus shipping, plenty of upgrade potential.

 

[RogueThunder]

Couple of options.

Some feedback on the PC you linked to above:
-4 gigs of memory will be the MOST you can use in this PC ever. Making one of the neat features of Vista and Windows 7 never available.
-667Mhz RAM is fairly low-spec.
-There is never a good reason to use SLI. Avoid whenever possible. Overpriced, under-performing.
-3.5" floppy? They still make those?
-500w is NOT enough for gaming. Period.

I second the EW on that linked system. Gota be a pretty old SLI board...

As for the 500w note. A very good 500W shrugs off a single high end card, and a good cpu in a full rig just fine. And only a very good one. Much better to grab at least a solid 600w though. Extra margin is always nice.

And there is ONE reason to use SLI... on 9 series geforce cards. And crossfire on HD3/HD4 cards. When you want more than 2 monitors. Earlier nvidia cards don't support this while SLI'ed. That said. I doubt Hanny is that sort. But it is a point.
(Its quite nice for a friend of mine who has 2 HD4650's, on an ati motherboard. Runs 5 monitors. Thanks to how it works... All his actual umph goes to one monitor[or two, when he runs supreme commander] for gaming.)
(Side note: His setup IS a driver nightmare still.)

That said, yeah. Don't go for a premade if you have the basic skills necessary to assemble a system yourself. A hand picked system is always a nice thing.


Subnotes: Aye, gskill good ram. Corsair too(Their expedient warnetee being the saving grace to a recent bad batch)
Asus=good, seconded. Got 9 years outa my last board from em. Was ended by a shorted KVM.
Recent ATI and NVIDIA chipset motherboards, have quite respectable onboard sound. 7X0 AMD(Excluding 730) and anything Geforce 8/9 branded.

 

[Hanny]

Couple of options.

Some feedback on the PC you linked to above:
-4 gigs of memory will be the MOST you can use in this PC ever. Making one of the neat features of Vista and Windows 7 never available.
-667Mhz RAM is fairly low-spec.
-There is never a good reason to use SLI. Avoid whenever possible. Overpriced, under-performing.
-3.5" floppy? They still make those?
-500w is NOT enough for gaming. Period.

.

It has 2 mem ports i was thinking filling one with 4 and adding another 4 in the other slot at a later date. Its to do with tyhe customising link at the foot of the page, where i looked at the fatset cpu and mem blocks in 4, with abilityb to add another later ifwhen i need it.
http://www.eclipsecomputers.com/systems.aspx?sysid=37#

The ram speed is 800 also btw, and floppys are still standard in the Uk but i have no idea who uses them!.

I used to build from parts 12-15 years ago when the cost was extreme and the saveing worth it, but 500 or so is not a problem and the rig ive got now is reaching th end of the upgrade path so will start from scratch more or less.

 

[HadesScorn]

Ah, I see. Kind of weird features they have listed on the cover page in that case.

Yeah, the 800mhz RAM is more reasonable than the 667 they had on the front page. 1066 is ideal right now, but 800 is more than enough for FfH [I actually have 3x1 @800 right now in my legacy rig which runs FfH just fine, Huge map, maxed civs.]

RT brought up some good points on dual monitors. I've never understood the desire for them, but if you really wanted it SLI is a decent investment.

One reason I'm leary of pre-built stores is that they have a tendency to not inform you on what parts are going into their PC. I scanned around on the MoBo they listed.
http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=1474&l1=3&l2=11&l3=473&l4=0

Some issues are:
-FBS of 1333Mhz [2000 is industry standard right now]. This limits the effectiveness of your CPU.
-Max RAM timing of 800. Again, I.S. is 1066 atm.
Other than that, mainly a good board.

If you don't want to deal with the hassle buying the premade is alright, but it's upgrade path is limited. That being said, best of luck on the hunt.

 

[Grey Fox]

RT brought up some good points on dual monitors. I've never understood the desire for them, but if you really wanted it SLI is a decent investment.

I was interested in triple monitors once to play planetside in a really wide resolution. Changing some field of view settings, this could make it a more realistic view for an fps.

 

[RogueThunder]

Some issues are:
-FBS of 1333Mhz [2000 is industry standard right now]. This limits the effectiveness of your CPU.

Ack, wrongness. Sorry but...

AMD's using 2.6GHz "hyper-transport" on AM2+ which isnt quite the same as intel FSB. 2.0Ghz was socket AM2.

Intel chips, are still using a traditional FSB, 1333MHz would be second to top of the LGA775 FSB speeds. They only go up to 1600Mhz on extreme boards.
Intel i7 has adopted a bit of a different FSB design... Long story short. That said, should be irrelevant for this conversation, as they're overpriced high end parts only atm.

1333Mhz Intel FSB, and 2.6Ghz hyper-transport, preform much the same, on their respective architectures. The exception being ram performance, which AMD's artful trick of not running ram though the FSB anymore, gives them a nice little edge.

That said, a truely current LGA775 board, would support 1600Mhz fsb, So it is a LITTLE limiting. But even the sately E8400 Core 2 Duo only goes at 1333Mhz FSB.

In AMD's case, only tri and quad core actually run at 2.6Ghz hyper-transport, so far the dual-cores use the socket AM2 mode even on AM2+ boards still. That said AM2+ boards tend to be much better boards in general.

Note: With a non-phenom AMD cpu right now, the max ram speed is DDR2-800. And Phenom DDR2-1066. Both your motherboard AND cpu in AMD systems control the maximum, as the memory controller is on the CPU. (And the motherboard has the wires/bios.)
Intel, it is purely by the motherboard. As the ram controller is part of the northbridge, and hence fully motherboard determined.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

With my Vista system, I had to go to RUN and MSCOFIG to get most of my games to work right. I have also cured my Memory Allocation Error by doing that. That being said VISTA SUCKS that I have to do that. Only basic services are running now along with Norton. And I got a Quad Core system runs good for Fallout 3 as long as I use MSCONFIG. There is some (of the MILLIONS VISTA RUNS that don't seem to be doing anything) that likes to conflict with my gaming.

 

[HadesScorn]

RT- Argh! Truth is I'm rusty and haven't looked into upgrades in a while, including the new AM2+ boards. Here I am puttering away on an outdated system. Nooooes!

To Darkwood- yes, vista has issues running most games at peak efficiency. If you think its bad now, imagine how it was when it first came out. Hell, it made me adopt Ubuntu for 6 months until a game came along that I *needed* a dual-boot to play.

 

[Hanny]

Intresting stuff folks.

I guess europe is perhaps generation behind the US in what is the standard, something bthat ame upo in my net searching was a comment on xp not reading more than 3 meg and vista 64 was capabable of 8, so that xp with more ram was actually nopt improving the rig as much as you would think it would as the OS was limited by how mjuch it recognised, this struck me as somewhat improtant when thinking the answer to perfermence was simply to add more of a thing later.

Q for those playing on huge maps in the late game, what kind of time do turns take to process?, does a better graphics card help more than a faster CPU when dealling with perhaps 000s of units and huge maps?.

 

[EmptyWolf]

Intresting stuff folks.

I guess europe is perhaps generation behind the US in what is the standard, something bthat ame upo in my net searching was a comment on xp not reading more than 3 meg and vista 64 was capabable of 8, so that xp with more ram was actually nopt improving the rig as much as you would think it would as the OS was limited by how mjuch it recognised, this struck me as somewhat improtant when thinking the answer to perfermence was simply to add more of a thing later.

Q for those playing on huge maps in the late game, what kind of time do turns take to process?, does a better graphics card help more than a faster CPU when dealling with perhaps 000s of units and huge maps?.

A better graphics card means the rest of your PC isn't bottlenecked by your graphics performance. A single 8800 GT/9800 GT can max out FFH no problem so I'd recommend any mid-range card. But as for your question about GPU vs CPU: I've found civ/FFH is nearly all in the CPU, while the majority of other games are GPU limited. I had a dual core 2ghz AMD CPU and when I built my new rig with an intel quad core @ 3.2ghz the difference was amazing. As for RAM there's nearly no difference in gaming with 633mhz and 800mhz RAM. I'd suggest to get 3 to 4 gb of RAM so it isn't an issue (vista does require more RAM than xp but it utilizes it more efficiently).

Vista 32 bit now recognizes and uses 4 gb (that was fixed from 3gb a while ago). 64 bit depends on which vista version but 64 bit can use up to 128gb I believe. But Civ IV is 32 bit so you won't get much performance gain if any by getting a 64 bit OS. As for vista having problems running games at high efficiency... that was related to not disabling the aero desktop while a game was running and vista even runs most current-gen games at better performance than xp. And for your question about how many turns a second takes on a huge map of 19 civs when you have a good CPU: I can only answer from my experience with my old and current rig, but a turn for me takes under a second to 3 seconds usually (late game is when it can take a second or two more) while with my old 2ghz CPU it could vary between 8 and even over 30, while late game at times it could take a minute or two. Huge map generation is also 30 seconds to under a minute for me typically while previously it took me three to four minutes at the very least.

And the memory allocation error that you mention Darkwood: XP also has that problem with civ and it's related to the OS trying to copy CIV into the paging file. It's fixed by reducing your paging file to 512mb to prevent it being copied there or simply getting more RAM. And yes some vista systems can be a pain at times to get working properly, although XP had similiar problems too.

Unfortunately parts of Europe are a generation or two behind in the computer market but the UK is hardly behind compared to a lot of other EU countries, fortunately for you.