drewjn

Meant more of the fun attempts of adding 500 or so rocket boosters together, let it lift off with over 30 or so disconnections and have it all shake and blow up at a glorious 2fps. Could also go into ark, and just console command 5k rexs, a mecha/chrome dragon or two, and a few mod bosses for your game to crash to all hell. Granted, then the question is whether you mean demanding due to what we add into the game, or whether it is demanding on vanilla with highest settings, or if it is due to just poor optimization; which was particularly my point in the first place.

Wouldn't say that it is due to graphical settings. The issue is more of how much crap you have on screen rendering all at once. In that case, you can do far worse with kerbal space program, or even skyrim, fallout, etc with console commands and mods.

I looked at the tea leaves and it just said: Bethesda/Zenimax... wait for after release and ask again.

Is it worth getting the gsync, or is it better to get a decent lower cost monitor without it?

If you really are worried on price, you could technically shave off a good deal on the price by going Korean import. I've done it in the past and haven't had much problem with the monitor at all. Only real downside with it is that the stand it comes with leaves much to be desired (probably why the price is cheaper); granted, it can be vesa mounted, so it isn't that big a deal. The panel itself is usually samsung or lg, so you should be fine regardless. So 250-350 usd for a 27" ips, 1440p, 60hz monitor (can technically oc to 90). I purchased from green-sum from ebay back in 2015, and had very little issues with the purchase, shipping or product. I hope that is helpful as an alternate option.

Fair enough, as you can see from my request, the only real requirement is size 24-27" and high refresh rate. Beyond that I'm quite open. If you have suggestions on specific monitors with decent reviews, please share.

Computer specs listed in signature, though I plan to probably upgrade gpu to a 1070 or 1080 sometime soon. Current display is a 1440p ips (27"). It can technically oc to 120 (apparently best at 90), but korean imports can be funky about that and I was too lazy to bother. So I'm looking towards a 24-27" gaming quality monitor, with the standard <2ms response time and ~144hz refresh rate. 1080p is fine, but wouldn't mind 1440p if that is available (already assume that is unlikely). IPS preferred, but also understand that it is far more likely for it to be a tn panel, so I won't be too stringent on that. As I use Nvidea cards, it would be nice if you can suggest g-sync monitors, but that I can also live without. My expected price range is 300-500 usd or so (soft cap, so I don't mind going over if need be). Any suggestions, brand warnings, etc would be very helpful

@Vode @CostcoSamples Very true on the stock i7 vs the i5. The 4690k and 4790k are truly differentiated by number of threads, but the 4790k runs perfectly fine without an oc, while 4690k usually is oc'd to get around the same (or a tad better) performance when oc'd (yes, you can oc it for far more, but we don't need to get down to the level of liquid nitrogen, etc). If not overclocking for great performance is fine enough, why bother to go through the extra, and potentially destructive/unsafe, effort? I personally would go equivalent i7 if you can afford it, even if you don't necessarily need it beyond gaming. Granted, that isn't a rule of thumb, purely just personal preference.

No worries. There is also the issue on @CostcoSamplesthoughts of going i5 quad core to i7 quad core (for himself), but that is possibly more viable/sensible in that it will give him hyperthreading, as i5 (at least, last time I looked at them) did not have such features.

I only said GPU, not CPU. I hadn't planned on any upgrade when there is obviously no need. To be fair, I did ask if there were any current GPUs that may be throttled by it, but that was more out of curiosity, and for future reference.

I did mention what I was considering, so those questions were unneeded. It looks like I'll get a 1080, or wait for the 1080ti.

@WereCat I was thinking 1070 or 1080 (latter in case I eventually consider getting a 4k setup). A 1060 would practically be a near even trade, so it wouldn't be that worthwhile. @CostcoSamples Probably game on one and use the other for multitasking. I don't really do racing or other game genres that would make decent use of having the game split into multiple monitors.

I was considering upgrading from my 970 to manage a dual monitor setup with 1440p ips and 1080p 144hz monitors. What is a worthwhile change, and should I worry on bottlenecks at this point?

Better to just bring up the real reason why no one suggested the xbox one. There are no exclusives, thus you might as well get pc and upgrade it as you wish. If you liked any of the exclusives on ps4, then that is another option. Getting an xbone just don't seem as sensible after all things are considered. As for power, both microsoft and sony are creating 4k ready versions, so that is also a moot point. When you add that into the equations, you are still only paying more money for a shinier xbox with games that can all be played on pc.

The minix avior is decent, and ambidextrous in design. I use the naos and find no complaints with the brand. People would suggest the 7000 variant over the 8200, as there won't be mouse acceleration. Hope that helps.

The thing is, fps is only a single factor. What matters is also the resolution you play at. Playing a game at 1080p that can run at 60fps would impact less on the hardware than running it at 1440 or 4k resolution. The different gpu on the market are actually in tiers on what it can handle in regards to the resolution, number of monitors, and so on. Thus, we need to know your goals on the build, the pricepoint, and what else you wish to do on it besides gaming. Edit: just read the most recent post. I'd suggest editing your first post with an Edit: or P.S. with the pricepoint and the fact you wish to play on 1080p. This will make it easier for other posters. I'll refrain from making a build myself, as I believe there are others more in tune with the most recent gpu lines by amd and nvidea. What I will say though, is only go with a quad core (or higher) i5/i7 Intel cpu. This will be the best for future proofing as more games, especially AAA titles, will be utilizing 4 cores in the future.

Best way to go about it is simple. The cheapest is just to do a decent 1080p with decent graphical settings. High or ultra at 60fps. Cheapest acceptable build will likely be at the 500-700 usd range, while going towards 1000 could get you closer to being able to make an affordable 1440p build. Anything lower than 500 would be a viability, but can't be called future proofing in any way. Just name the price that you believe you can afford, and mention if you need us to include a monitor or peripherals (mice, keyboard, etc). I would say that this community can help you with that easily.

Tbh, the most important factor is the game, and the combination of cpu and gpu. A lower end cpu can throttle a higher end gpu, so that is a factor. Most games are more affected by the gpu, while there are a few that are cpu intensive. This also depends on if you plan to stream or run other programs in the background while you play. General rule is that you get the gpu you want, according to the resolution you wish to play at comfortably. RAM is easily upgradeable and the difference in speed (mhz) and latency is not easily notable in most situations for casual gaming 16 gb is preferred, 8 if you can only afford that after all things considered. HD vs SDD doesn't really affect in game performance as much as it mostly affects start up and load times. Mobo is related only to the cpu used, the connections you wish to have, and possibly the onboard bios, onboard sound and ability to oc. That by itself shouldn't affect your performance drastically.

@TheDev glad you found the reason before having to go through the whole re-install debacle.

Welp, more people reply without bothering to check the subforum it is in. Not too surprised anymore. As many have said it, the game may look amazing, but its alpha state is a great indicator that it is not fully optimized, nor will it be for some time. More parts of the game get implemented, more changes to the overall system and more models and animations are added as the game progresses. Optimizing usually follows after a game is in a stable and more complete state. It is too soon for that, in regards to Star Citizen. Ironically, you will get around the same fps at higher resolution, all things considered.

From what I recall, having 4 cores should be enough, so a decent i5 should be all you need. As for gpu, I believe that a 970 is the supposed lower limit/requirement for Oculus and Vive.

It is either interference, or too much power is being pulled that the amp within is not enough for it. If you use a dedicated amp, or plug the speakers and headphones in different ports, it should be fine. Other than that, all of your equipment is working fine; so don't be too concerned.

You can get cheapest now and upgrade whenever, if that makes it easier. As for what to do in the baby pu, using the discord chat will find you people more knowledgeable than I in the current build.

@cortexcortexReliant mini-hauler, Cutlass (if fixed), Freelancer, Caterpillar, Constellation, Merchantman, Carrack, Endeavor Any of those fit that route to some degree. The reliant is a second tier starter ship, the cutlass is a medium ship with different modular options, and both can be used for different roles. Freelancer and Caterpillar are both dedicated to hauling, with caterpillar having more modularity, and freelancer being quite defensible. The constellation is an all rounded ship with different possibilities, while merchantman is a good hauling vessel that can explore as well. Carrack is dedicated to exploration with far greater distance and likely survivability. The Endeavor has many capabilities, but depends on if any of those fit your preferences, and if you have the support to manage and protect it decently. Edit: alternatively, you can get a cheap Avenger now (since it has some cargo space) and just coast on that till you find a ship you want come available.