What hardware do i realy need?

Yeah man, I've been tempted with an overclock, but like I said, I've only had the screen a week so I'm sure some tweaking can be done. If I upgrade I'll have to decide what's first, chip or Ram. At least an overclock is free right?

 

Overclock is free as long as you have a aftermarket cooler, the stock one isnt really that good. Some CPUs overclock better than others but there is still more performance to get so try an overclock first. You dont need more than 16GB of ram, at least if its performance in games you looking for.

 

It's worth noting here than my 3.5Ghz i5 4690k CPU is overclocked to 4.6Ghz (required for flight simulation), so that is probably significant with respect to how well Assetto Corsa runs on my PC.

 

I believe the Oculus Rift recommends a 970 GTX or equivalent for their consumer version, if you're thinking of getting into VR at some point in the next year (or rather, before you plan to upgrade the graphics card again), might be worth keeping in mind.

 

"Having a problem" depends on many factors.

- Triple screen or 1 screen
- Graphical details and PP filter you use
- What kind of races? Full grid or only a few cars
- What kind of selection of cars, single model, single class, or multiclass
- What framerate you are happy with. Personally can't play racing with anything under 60 fps, not even short / small dips.

 

You're my man! I'd rather race shoeboxes around the track at steady 60 than race high-end models at 58 FPS.
Given your sensitivity to stutter I'm afraid your rig doesn't make all that much sense...You're possibly running low GPU usage at maximum VRAM usage which is where microstutter comes from. I suggest you sell the 2GB one and play with the 4GB until the 980 you will have ordered has arrived

 

That's a hefty tweak, I'll check what cooler I've got and have a butcher's.

I think my ram just had poor clock speeds, 800 iirc. I'm a little rusty because it's been a couple of years since I built it.

To be fair, I've just got a 27inch monitor which is eye melting, AC looks stunning, and so do other titles I've thrown at it, so serious investment and upgrades aren't due just yet.

As for the op, I think upgrading always comes down to budget, you either spend a lot and pay for the better kit, or you look for what was hot and save yourself some brass.

And of course everybody has an opinion on what's hot and what's not.

 

If it says 800MHz in CPU-Z, you have 1600MHz. 800x2.

 

his CPU is just fine, my 3770K is also running at stock clock and utilized by 30% to 35% in AC with a full grid. Whether there is no app causing trouble, there is no need for @snyperal to overclock his CPU.

 

A GTX970 is a good shout for a card to run AC. The 780 OC or 780ti may be cheaper but they would also do a very good job.

I personally have the 780OC and it copes very well with 24 cars on all tracks. At the start I get about 80-90fps, then after lap 1 about 110-120fps again with a full grid of cars with most settings on high.

 

I had an R9 290x and best fps I could achieve was around 35-55ish on ultra. With AI track, my 4670 was a bottleneck but it's running stable now at 4.2 ghz.

Think the only way you'll get around 100 fps is if you run medium settings.

 

When I lock my fps to 75 I get 65% usage with full grid start at the back. The difference is that it will take a lot more when I unlock the frames because that takes more of the CPU. And since he have a 144Hz monitor he want as many frames as possible.

 

- Triple screen or 1 screen - single 24" Asus VS247HR DVI widescreen
- Graphical details and PP filter you use - Very high detail levels/PP effects disabled/16x AF/8xS AA
- What kind of races? Full grid or only a few cars - Full grid online or AI, smooth framerates
- What kind of selection of cars, single model, single class, or multiclass - GT3/GT2/GTC/GTE/GX/others together are fine
- What framerate you are happy with. Personally can't play racing with anything under 60 fps, not even short / small dips.[/quote] - framerates generally 60fps or higher (depends on the track being used, and whether escessive amounts of smoke and dust are visible), but I am only really bothered about whether it is smooth or not. In other words, I don't check my framerate every five seconds. I just drive.

I guess it all depends what is the most important factor for each individual. I have no interest in running three monitors at the same time (partly because it would be expensive, but also because more monitors means more graphics power required to run at a particular level of detail). I also don't think that post processing results in such a massive difference in graphical quality that I simply must use it. I had it switched on for a while when I first started using AC, but I tried switching it off because of the annoying "whitewash" effect that can occur at certain tracks with HDR lighting.

 

See system specs and option settings in my sig. Fluent frames. Great visuals.

The early settings for AA and AF from 0 to 2x or 4x make more visible difference, than later jumps from 8x to 16x or something like that. Thats why I do not need to aim for that high settings there at all: the gains become smaller, the demands higher. With AA and AF at 2x or 4x you already have a superbly looking game.

You DO NOT NEED the latest, the newest, the most costly hardware out there - especially not with gfx boards. I always buy one generation behind gfx boards, and then aim for good bang for the buck. Much more economic and imo more reasonable. When i bought my current 660GTX, the 700-series was the flagship, so its an old card. But it gets the job done, still, passing the test with flying colours. Frames in Ac mostly are in the 50-70 range.

Some harmony in the general system hardware is needed. Avoid bottlenecks. No need to go for one overkill item that gets slowed down by the rest of the system.

 

Funny things... Maybe some of this AMD problem regarding driver overhead? Besides that 670 WF in your sig means nvidia gtx 670 ^^

I did a test video for another guy few months ago (full AI grid, demanding time/track, no FPS lock, all AC settings maxed out, full HD):

Watch the red CPU line in the render app, much space left to the top (and I know hot it looks like when it's full utilized because I hat some problems with an app causing stuttering).

I really have never ever seen a clean running AC getting into the CPU Limit, it was always only the GPU utilized by 100%.

 

No **** sherlock.. I get the frames/settings im happy with in games im playing so I dont see a reason to upgrade it just to be allowed to have an opinion in hardware threads. Its not like it will make your e-penis longer and people will think that youre a millionaire because of you having a 980.

I cant watch youtube atm. Do a search on the interwebz, theres no secret that higher frames means that you need more power from the CPU, but I guess a pc guru like yourself already knew that, or that you didnt so that cant be correct (). Not a chance that he will be able to use a 290 and running ultra settings with good frames, specially when he have bought a 144Hz monitor and want as much as possible, thats when the GPU set the limit and not the CPU - lower settings to get higher frames means that its more cpu dependent. .

 

This is why some of us don't aim for the highest rung on the ladder

 

Thanks for the compliment Man you can talk to me in an adult way. And yes I'm a gamer since about 20 years now when I got my first pc, also working in the IT business.

So but OK, I will say it clearer:

• 144Hz doesn't mean he needs 144 FPS
• AC is a very GPU demanding game (told me the interwebz and my own experiences and tests for going triples) => you have to reduce the settings a lot to go from GPU to CPU limit with fast hardware
  
• your overclocked 2500K is only as fast as his 3570K at stock (bechmarkzzzzzzzzz in the interwebzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
• his R9 290 is around 40% to 60% faster then your 670 GTX

He will get three-digit FPS by setting reflections to low and PP off, still running into the GPU limit, so because of what reason should he fiddle around to overclock his CPU?

And now I feel young again because of the coolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Yep, a strategy game is ok with 30 fps, racing is not. My setup surely is not ideal, I got it long before I got into triple screen gaming or AC. Back then 4GB 770 (as 780 series was the highest performing card back then) was expensive as hell, but looking back should have gone for that instead.

Graphics settings in my signature I use mainly for small AI races, with less than 10 cars. For MP races with full grid, I set shadows on low/med and glares on low. Noticed glares (star effect in bright metal) is quite taxing. Also have modified tyre_smoke.ini for less smoke that vanishes quick. But with 62.5 framecap + vsync on I don't get any stutter, as long as I don't try to run too high settings in MP / other bigger races.

 

As an aside would running web telemetry apps on 2 other screens drastically affect performance? I don't imagine they are very hungry, but if it's an issue I could rig those other screens up to a spare computer.

Also thank you for your help, I'm enjoying reading both of your opinions.