What PC do you use for playing Warframe smoothly?

[(PSN)ChiefStevy]

I play on the PS4 but I can already admit that PC players have a lot of advantages over console players, such as the increased population and Warframe.market, so I want to try out the experience of playing on it. I didn't have much trouble picking which PS4 to buy since there's only one version, but there are just hundreds of variety in choosing what kind of PC to get and I've been think about buying a new one with the same issue of deciding. So, PC players, what kind of computer do you own? Desktop, Laptop, gaming-specific, bought in parts and assembled by hand, bought in full?

Also, try not to throw some numbers at me that I may or may not understand, my current budget is $1100 but preferable one around $400, include the monitor if that's important, and let's not start any PC-console wars.

[Urlan]

27 minutes ago, taiiat said:

oh, more popcorn time. always makes my day happy to slap down people that don't know what they're doing.
because Computers matter and misinformation does nobody any good.

• Warframe is still completely CPU bound.
• PCI-E x16 2.0 is already not a bottleneck for Graphics Cards (PCI-E x16 1.0 was only a bottleneck with high end GPU's at high Refresh Rates).
  to get a noticeable performance reduction, you need to go below PCI-E x8 2.0. zero performance difference between PCI-E x16 2.0 and 3.0 - there simply just isn't enough data that needs to be transmitted. 2160p@120Hz maybe... but only time will tell once GPU's are actually capable of reaching those points, since they aren't currently.
• Metro: Last Light is a completely GPU bound game. you chose the wrong random pulled out of the air example for this, Metro: Last Light is a GPU destroying game. it's brutal on them.

this is just so hilarious.

I think we are just going to have to agree to have different viewpoints and work experience on this subject.

 

[Sloan441]

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the CPU bound thing in personal experience, though here I'm relatively limited to what I've seen on three machines in four variations.

What I have observed is if there's a weak link in the computer, it'll show up most strongly in the GPU...but...resolution will have more to do with framerate deficiencies than just checking boxes in options.

I don't have personal experience with a grossly unbalanced machine in WF. The most extreme example I've seen was working with my 2500K box when its original 580GTX Lightning failed. The problem is all my WF gaming (except for a few days on an i5 750/260GTX rig) has been at the 2560x1600 resolution which is very demanding on the GPU. If it's not up to snuff, you see big hits in framerates. The 580 kinda stuggled. I didn't run AA on this box at that time, since I was seeing framerates around 40-50 in the void and around 15-40 in the relays on Baro weekends.

Then the 580 failed one weekend. This was...unexpected and I had to do something right away to get the machine back on line, since the alternating was the 750/260GTX and it just couldn't cut the WF mustard at the visuals I demanded. A quick decision had a TitanX on the way, since it was either this or the end-of-life 970 or 980 cards (the 980Ti wouldn't be out for another month).

The difference was, perhaps unsurprisingly, profound. So, yeah, GPU does matter a lot, but this is a rather extreme resolution. The TitanX combined with the 2500K ran at 60fps everywhere with everything maxed. Well, mostly everywhere. Baro weekends could hit 45-55fps, depending on tenno density in the relay. With vsync off, I could see framerates in the 300s (no point on these monitors, but the potential was there for a 144hz monitor, which I did briefly consider, but the real goal is G-sync 4K monitors and I'm not giving up the sheer real estate of a 30" panel).

Then came the new box, a 4790K/TitanX. This machine is, potentially, a lot stronger on the CPU side of things. It has the same exact GPU and runs on the same exact monitor (both boxes have HP ZR30w monitors). In game...practically no difference in framerates. The 4790K does see less framerate drops in the relays when a crowd is around. It rarely drops below 55fps, so the CPU does make some difference, but not nearly the difference the GPU upgrade made.

So, I'm not convinced the game is seriously bound on either side of the CPU/GPU equation. There are a lot of other factors in play. I think unbalanced machines can see serious performance issues in certain conditions, but the GPU is vital to driving high resolutions at acceptable framerates. If your GPU is weak for your chosen resolution, no CPU is going to make up for it.

[-RollerGuy-]

If you can, you should probably try to build your own PC, as this is cheaper than stuff like Alienware and such (unless you want a laptop, which is more difficult to build).

I would suggest waiting, since all the new GPUs coming out will hit the aftermarket soon. Maybe around the end of this year would be a good time, where you could choose one of the new cards or get one of the older ones which hopefully receives a reduction in price. But Warframe isn't that GPU intensive anyhow, so getting any average video card would probably do, unless you also want to play other games. I heard that some new AMD card is coming out really cheap, but  it still delivers decent performance, so you might want to check that out.

And for a CPU, you probably want something like a 4690 (K)? or 6600 (K)?, which should last you for awhile.

The rest is really up to you, maybe you should go on reddit or some PC forum to ask around.

Good luck!

[Troll_Logic]

On 6/10/2016 at 4:50 PM, taiiat said:

oh, more popcorn time. always makes my day happy to slap down people that don't know what they're doing.
because Computers matter and misinformation does nobody any good.

• Warframe is still completely CPU bound.
• PCI-E x16 2.0 is already not a bottleneck for Graphics Cards (PCI-E x16 1.0 was only a bottleneck with high end GPU's at high Refresh Rates).
  to get a noticeable performance reduction, you need to go below PCI-E x8 2.0. zero performance difference between PCI-E x16 2.0 and 3.0 - there simply just isn't enough data that needs to be transmitted. 2160p@120Hz maybe... but only time will tell once GPU's are actually capable of reaching those points, since they aren't currently.
• Metro: Last Light is a completely GPU bound game. you chose the wrong random pulled out of the air example for this, Metro: Last Light is a GPU destroying game. it's brutal on them.

this is just so hilarious.

Just a quick update.  My video card GTX 970 SSC just died.  While I'm waiting for the replacement, I decided to repurpose another computer as my gaming machine.  So I'm moving from a second gen i5 to a i7 3770k.  Doubling memory as well.  Using an old nvidia GT 640 PCIe card for now.

If Warframe was completely CPU bound then I should be getting awesome performance right?  After all, the video card sucks, but I'm going up in processor power 4X or so.

Nope.  If I turn all of the graphics options off and turn all of the other option to the lowest, I'm getting 40 fps in the ship at 2560x1600.  If I change the resolution down to 1080p, I can get 55fps in the ship and @ 40fps in a mission.

Completely CPU bound?  this is just so hilarious. 

 

 

[taiiat]

2 hours ago, Troll_Logic said:

Nope.  If I turn all of the graphics options off and turn all of the other option to the lowest, I'm getting 40 fps in the ship at 2560x1600.  If I change the resolution down to 1080p, I can get 55fps in the ship and @ 40fps in a mission.

keeping apt to your name as always. 

deliberately doubling the Render Resolution far over what your Media Accelerator (that's not a GPU for games by the way, it's made for watching high res movies - a single model higher would be for games), and then complaining that performance goes down.

howbout that, if you massively multiply GPU load, GPU load goes up.

 

go be an ignorant troll somewhere else. i don't entertain people that have no idea what they're talking about. everybody that does know how computers (and Warframe) works, will continue to laugh.

 

by the way, you've actually increased your Processor capabilities by ~9.5%, not 400%.
a 3770k is ~9.5% faster than a 2500k.

Edited July 9, 2016 by taiiat

[Sloan441]

Actually, I don't even think the difference between the 3770K and 2500K is even that great. The 2500K usually responds better to overclocking as well. Of course, there's the hyperthreading, but in gaming that still isn't a big deal...yet.

Nevertheless, if your CPU is relatively up to date and a strong chip, it should be capable of supporting very strong GPUs and allow high resolutions and framerates in WF. GPU choice will affect game performance far more than a few generations of CPU. The cutoff seems to be Sandybridge. Chips from before that might have more issues, but my own experience was limited to the i5 750. I suspect if you put a TitanX or something similar in that box there'd be bottlenecking issues.

So, again, I don't really see the game being either bound on GPU or CPU. If some component is very dated, then you'll see performance issues. If things are reasonably balanced, then any adjustments should be relatively predictable and straight forward when it comes to performance.

[Troll_Logic]

1 hour ago, taiiat said:

keeping apt to your name as always. 

deliberately doubling the Render Resolution far over what your Media Accelerator (that's not a GPU for games by the way, it's made for watching high res movies - a single model higher would be for games), and then complaining that performance goes down.

howbout that, if you massively multiply GPU load, GPU load goes up.

Hey, you said "completely CPU bound."  That's what you said.  I know it isn't a gaming GPU, but again, you said "Warframe is completely CPU bound." I'm not complaining about the performance.  I knew what the performance would be.  But now that I had to swap parts, I thought I'd point out that warframe isn't completely CPU bound.

Don't forget that the fps jumped almost 50% just by changing the resolution on a game that according to you is "completely CPU bound."

1 hour ago, taiiat said:

go be an ignorant troll somewhere else. i don't entertain people that have no idea what they're talking about. everybody that does know how computers (and Warframe) works, will continue to laugh.

Those are solid numbers.  Tested numbers.  I wasn't planning on replying, but since I had real world numbers, I did.

You can laugh all you want, but if warframe is "completely CPU bound" then it's the first visually rich game that is.  That the numbers point out it isn't.

 

1 hour ago, taiiat said:

by the way, you've actually increased your Processor capabilities by ~9.5%, not 400%.
a 3770k is ~9.5% faster than a 2500k.

9.5% really?  You think two generations, double the cores, and a higher clock speed only increases the cpu speed by 9.5%?  So I checked.

I was a little off.  I thought the i5 was a little slower that it was and the i7 was a little faster.  I thought it was 3500 to almost 12k benchmark difference.

Turns out the i5 benchmarks at 5278 and the i7 benchmarks at 9566.  So it's looking at @100% speed increase.

 

Anyway, no need ot argue anymore.  I've proven my point.  Warframe is a GPU intensive game, not CPU bound.

Laters.