As far as RAM goes wouldn't the more logical choice (assuming dual channel) be 4GBx2? It's plenty of RAM and with modern motherboards you could likely simply add another pair of 4GB modules if you need to upgrade in the future.

My dream machine, though I might not be able to afford it before Skyrim, is something like:
AMD's Bulldozer 8 core if it doesn't cost a ton. If it does, then one of the decent socket AM3 CPUs that can be replaced with Bulldozer or its successors down the line.
AM3+ motherboard for the above with onboard sound and hopefully USB 3.0
8GB DDR3 RAM (4GBx2) I always hear buying the higher frequency RAM is a waste of money, but what I get will depend on the current prices.
Hopefully a computer case that actually has USB 3.0 ports. Most current ones do not. I like fan air filters too.
Wireless N LAN card if it's not built into the motherboard
Graphics card is a big question mark now. Probably something along the lines of the nVidia 460/560 but if another mid/high card like those is great bang for the buck for 200ish dollars (no more than 250 if I can afford it). I'm unfamiliar with AMD cards right now but if it's better bang for the buck and cooler (temp wise) than nVidia I might get that.
64GB SSD if I can afford it and the prices go down some.
1TB HDD for standard documents and such. Maybe 2TB if they are cheap enough to not inflate the price much.
A very cheap (20ish dollar) DVD combo drive. I'll only get a Blu-ray if it's significantly less than 100 dollars. It's too easy to replace or add an optical drive for me to even think of buying Blu-ray at this point. I have a PS3 for that.
600-700W PSU... which is probably overkill but better a bit over than under.

I see things like mechanical keyboards as enormous wastes of money so I'd be using a 10-20 dollar five button mouse from Monoprice with an old keyboard.

I plan to use a copy of Windows 7 we already have that turned out to not perform well on an older computer.
If I can afford it, a 24" widescreen LCD monitor with integrated speakers. I'd use a USB headset most of the time anyway and I never found the need to spend much for sound.
I might wait until Cyber Monday even if I have the money at Skyrim launch. I'm not sure how much better those deals tend to be.

A machine like that will probably eat Skyrim for lunch. I'm guessing it would be considered a mid-high machine. Bulldozer will probably be more expensive than I'm hoping is why I say that. I think now would be a terrible time to put a machine together even if you prefer Intel. The fall or early Winter will be far more clear.

Im just gonna chime in, been building computer for a LONG time and alot of people are blowing it out of proportion, Skyrim will not be THAT demanding, but regardless some hardware refreshes might be in order.

I present, the Cheap-play-everything-pc
CPU: Wait for Bulldozer or buy a CHEAP 955 (push it up a multiplier to make it a 965) 155$
Mobo: Gigabyte or ASUS AM3 Board with decent settings (dont waste money on Crossfire/SLI boards) 100$ ish
Power Supply: Corsair/Antec 650 or 750 watt (prolly don't need more than 650) 100-120$
Ram: 4gb 1600, i've never seen a use for more than 4, but 8 is cheap nowadays if your feeling extra wastey with your money. 40-80$ ish
GPU: Any of the 6XXX series IMO are the best deals, but im AMD biased so......I say 6870. but it's w/e. 300$ or so i believe, havent checked prices.

Thats basically your main components, CD Drive/etc is w/e. Dont waste money on gaming mice/keyboards and you can keep it well under 1000$

don't:
-Don't buy an SSD unless having more than 30 sec boot times just drive you MAD, seriously they are NOT worth it for everyday use. It's not going to make the game run any faster, and they are wayy to expensive right now per gb. Maybe wait 2-3 years when they are super cheap for actual everyday use.
-Don't buy more than 4 gb's of RAM unless you do intensive multitasking, or it's on sale REALLY cheap. I've never used even 4gb's much less 8. RAM does not make your computer faster, that is not how it works despite what some people think.

Thanks for the advice. Wouldn't it be better to wait for AM3+ though for a motherboard? That way you can upgrade the CPU later. If you buy an AM3 motherboard your options are limited since they are not making new AM3 compatible CPUs anymore after Bulldozer releases.

I would get 8GB for the simple idea that I want a computer to last years. The one I use most often now is six and a half years old for example. If you only get 4GB of RAM you are either disabling dual-channel mode for the memory or you will have two 2GB modules, meaning that if you ever need to upgrade in the future and want to keep dual channel you'd either have to use four 2GB modules or replace the ones you have and get four modules of another memory amount (4GB? I'm not sure what all the options are with motherboards of today). Of course I'm assuming you can't have two 2GB modules and upgrade by adding two more 4GB modules for 12GB RAM total, if need be. Are all of the modules ideally of the same size?

I think, if I have the funds, you have talked me out of a SSD though. I figured it makes games start up and load new areas much more quickly, as well as basically instant start for standard programs? It's not that dramatic?

Good point on the AM3+ I had forgotten they had just been released. So ya that would be preferable.
and yes for 4g you would have two 2gb's. But like I said, if Ram is cheap. 8gb is fine, although you won't really use it. But you can have 2 4gb modules (at least on most mobo's) you would ideally want them to be the same brand/timings (notice I said IDEALLY)


But SSD won't really affect your game load time (it might slightly) but games are becoming quite large in GB's and SSD's just are not worth it.
Not to mention we REALLY don't know the reliability of SSDs.

Yeah if I used a SSD I'd have it make weekly backups onto a HDD. I'm more leaning against it though based on your advice. I was under the impression it would allow near instant load times.

I haven't looked up the price of 1600 DDR3 (or whatever the proper term is). I assumed it was more expensive. Fall/Winter is an eternity away in computer hardware time though.

1600 ram is actually cheap enough to where getting 8gb is affordable (prolly under 80-90 bucks)
Im just saying you 99% wouldn't notice a difference between 4 and 8gb's.

SSD ya, im not very keen on them.
Well.......at least consumer versions. There are enterprise versions (fibre channel arrays) that are really good, but are EXTREMELY expensive.
SSD's are more built for an increased throughput (or lots of tiny bits of data) not one long stream of data

The consumer versions cut alot of corners, however they are more reliable for laptops due to the amount of movement a normal drive will see in a laptop......which is why u see them alot in laptops/

The whole reason SSDs are starting to become the craze now is that their reliability has increased dramatically, while you wouldn't on average expect them to last as long as an HDD you would still expect one to last a good three or four years, the life time of a gaming PC really. Tho this is coming from a guy that seen numerous HDDs and SSDs die after only a few weeks... that I suppose is the advantage with working with 15,000+ servers. On average the vast majority of HDDs and SSDs will survive the life time of the machine.

How an SSD would improve load times is going to really depend on the game, SSDs would have the biggest effect at time which primarily throttle the disk drive. So games that throttle the disk drive more during loading will be noticeable, those that don't, won't. That said, more and more games are becoming better at background loading, I am hoping Skyrim does some level of background loading. I think I said it earlier in this thread, best place for an SSD is in a high-end SAN. I doubt SSDs will really make a good impression speed wise until SATA 3 comes more into force however since SATA 2 is the real limit on speed, if you could get a SATA 3 SSD with a SATA 3 motherboard controller, then it'd be more worthwhile but likely more expensive, it is easy however to toss in a cheap HDD with lots of storage on the side for the main OS and non-game related things... like music and videos.

Just wanted to point this out as... bull...

4870 is ~the same as the nVidia 260, which I have, and have no doubt I will be able to run on high settings, very well. Not to mention the undoubtable engine optimizations over Oblivion and Fallout3/NV, that will allow for good performance.



And whoever said eyes see in FPS and cant notice anything over 30. God, pray I don't find you when I have a sledge hammer. Eyes see in dynamic fluid motion, and can see, effectively, several thousands of frame per second. However, in computer terms, anything over 60 is useless and only good for a buffer when upping graphics levels. Reason being, most people have LCD monitors which refresh at ~60FPS, meaning, they CAN NOT show higher then their refresh rates. And if you think there is no difference between 30 and 60 FPS, then you sir, have poor eyes.

I'll save my money until week before Skyrim is released and buy best possible laptop (I travel a lot) I can.
By then, I'll have about 2K drakes euros to spend at least.

Actually, the nVidia GTX260 is approaching 3 years old now, I don't mean to toot the horn, but I wouldn't say it's a given that the GTX260 will certainly be able to handle high graphics until we see the game.. it's plausible but certainly not certain.

As for the eye, the eye can only send X amount of information down the optic nerve, so what the eyes will capture and the information sent down the optic nerve will vary and be the real limiting effect rather then the eye. however of course, as you say the Eyes are capable of Fluid Motion and so more FPS the eyes see will mean we capture a more fluid set of images that we do send down the optic nerve. That said, your LCD Monitor might go to 60FPS, others might go higher, my Television for example goes to 100FPS, some 3D TVs can go up to 200FPS (essentially 100*2 since one image is for the left eye and the other for the right). Computer Monitors generally don't go much faster because there isn't that much gain for it, but the differences even there can be noticed.

Major point, your TV isn't 100fps, it's 100Hz. The image refreshes 100 times a second, but it *updates* around 24. There's some pseudosciency explanation for why it's useful, something to do with 50Hz causing a flicker effect in peripheral vision, but it's certainly not a 100fps TV.

Hertz is the refresh rate of the screen, in other words the game out puts 60FPS and the monitor is running at 60Hz, you see 60 images a second. Of course if the game runs at 50FPS and the monitor is 60Hz, you still get 60 images a second but due to the differences in speeds you also get screen tearing. Now if the game is running at 60Hz the screen at 50FPS you get screen tearing again but only 50 images a second... That's the stuff I think we both already know. Vsync should sort out both of the latter two examples...

Now FPS is a reference to the amount of frames per second, hertz is a reference to how much something is done per second, in this case, how often the screen is redrawn. So yes the TV is capable of handling a 100 FPS, the TV is connected to my computer which I can use as a secondary Monitor, just because a standard TV signal is not 100Hz or FPS, is meaningless since it's not the only way to connect to a TV. However I still don't get 100 FPS/Herts because I am using DVI (with a DVI to HDMI lead between the PC and TV) which is limited by standard to 60FPS, else wise I'd get a nice 100FPS on my TV from my computer. Even VGA has a limit, tho with VGA I could probably get 70Hz, the image quality overall would suffer tho due to the anologue nature of VGA.

Many of those TVs would not support a signal for their listed refresh rate. If you do a search you'll find plenty of people wondering why their 120Hz TVs won't take 120Hz signals, etc.

This was my thought exactly. ;P A new PC will handle Dx11 games better, but those are still a ways off, and optimization for DX11 engine effects is still underway. In fact, You probably won't see much in terms of graphics until new consoles are released. The current gen are holding everything back.

Im saving my Money till November to Buy this for Skyrim. The i7-960 LGA2011 and a Graphics Card 580 even though by November Skyrim will probably Require for Max Req. the Geforce 590 and the i7-980 LGA2011

The GTX 590 has been a dissapointment according to the reviews I've seen. It no longer kicks ATi's card ass like the GTX 580 did with the Radeon 6970. The Radeon 6990 beats it in many tests, especially in high resolutions with AA enabled.

Besides, I've some doubts regarding the GTX 5xx. Why is that they perform better, even though the Radeon 6xxx has (technically) superior horsepower? Is that a matter of superior architecture and thus it can't be changed, or it's a matter of bad drivers? It bothers me, because if it's a matter of drivers, who can say that ATi won't release a new Catalyst version that fixes them, and unleash all the horsepower the ATi 6xxx cards theorically have?

I was before a Nvidia fan, but now I begin having doubts...I'll ask them in a couple of hardware forums and see if I can solve them before buying anything. In any case, if GTX 5xx' architecture is what matters, then it's two GTX 580-fabric OC to 875 or more in SLI for me, for sure.

I do not support this.

SSD's are a gimmick for comfort, but are not required at all performance wise. With a €1000,= budget I'd rather go for a fast regular HDD (WD Caviar Black 500Gb will only set you back around €50,=). I also definitely wouldn't get Sli or Crossfire at all. With a limited budget graphics cards are the easiest to save money for and upgrade later.

If you want a gaming rig for €1000,= that will last you a while too (with occasional upgrades), build one that can be easily upgraded and with quality products. You don't want to cut back too much on your mobo and CPU as they are hardest to replace (technically replacing your CPU is easy, but there're often socket issues etc.). You want to get a reasonable amount of RAM, but keep at least two slots free. You do not want dual graphics cards, but you do want your computer to be Sli/Crossfire capable. That way you more upgrade possibilities in the future and if you get a single mid-high end card now, you can easily upgrade your machine by simply adding an identical card (very cost effective as your old card is not rendered obsolete). You also want to get a good quality PSU that doesn't toast after a few years and that has enough output to accomodate for any future upgrades. Finally get proper cooling, no leds or anything, just performance.

If you build your PC like that, it will last you a long time. Upgrade possibilities and reliability of parts you've already bought (fewer replacements needed) mean that you can keep up with technological advances pretty well and pretty cheaply, and that you can give your system a boost when you suddenly have more money available.

Maybe they're not performace-wise in terms of FPS, but I dare to say that it's one of the general performance boosts that you'll notice the most, in terms of avoiding loading screens and loading times.

What I said is that 30 fps is the point at which the human eye does -not- perceive frame flicker in a digital environment. That is all. As in "as long as you can maintain 30fps, you have a useable video solution for the game in question'.


And no, eyes do -not- see, effectively, thousands of 'frames'. They are good, old fashioned =anolog= devices. There is no 'on' or 'off', there is a variable continuum between 0 and whatever the top signal capable is. With a plottable rise and decay between the values. Good old fashioned film runs at 24 fps -solely- due to the fact that film, by its very nature, creates motion blurring which the human brain (not the eyes) can process and use to 'fill in' the flickers. Unless motion blurruing is directly implemented into the actual game rendering engine, then your digital image system does -not- have this. And it does have hard state changes, which do not work well with anolog sensors. In fact the right frequency will trigger a seizure. So you need to keep above the minimum value to prevent this, and things like eye strain. And that minimum seems to sit at about 30fps.

Yes, a higher framerate -can- provide better luminance and more stable color response; but there is no need for the 150+fps uber crossfire or Nvidia buddy card setups that some were waxing poetic about. Unless you just want geek points for it.

However there is plenty of reason for 60fps, being a good compromise between being difficult to render and looking good!
Having said that, having seen the effects of decent blurring, I'd take 30fps with good blurring over 60fps - but I'd prefer both. Just because something has a minimum doesn't mean there aren't benefits to going higher!