Gaming Rig

[Azfoor]

a computer with an i3 3220 3,2ghz cpu, and a gtx 1050 2gb grafixcard, and an 120gb ssd. Am i able to run FS17 with some mods with decent grafix on that setup? Moderator can move this topic if it is in the wrong place.

[JohnDeere318]

Yes it will be decent, but if I were you, I would spend the extra cash on an Intel i5 6500. You won't regret it, I was about to buy an Intel i3 processor, but ended up buying an i5 for a little more and have not been disappointed.

If you don't have the extra funds, then yeah, that system should play decent.

[Azfoor]

Yes it will be decent, but if I were you, I would spend the extra cash on an Intel i5 6500. You won't regret it, I was about to buy an Intel i3 processor, but ended up buying an i5 for a little more and have not been disappointed.

If you don't have the extra funds, then yeah, that system should play decent.

Good to hear
but I actually desided to spend a little more and I'm looking att a system with a AMD Ryzen 3 1300X with a gtx 1060 3gb, but no ssd. The ssd i can upgrade later and maby an aio watercooler if I get the cash.

[bassaddict]

Seeing the hardware you're looking for, watercooling would be pretty pointless. You only really need it if you do serious overclocking with really high-end hardware. For entry-level gaming, you're better of with a decent regular cooler. If you get a big one, you'll probably reach about the same temperatures as with watercooling, but for a way lower price.
Rather invest the money in a SSD right away. Then you don't have to re-install the entire system later, just for adding a SSD. And the (loading) speed improvements you get with a SSD are really huge. If you got one once, you don't want a computer without anymore.

Regarding the GPU: I don't know what other games you play, but 3GB might be a bit low. At least in FS with some mod maps and mods, you can relatively easy hit the 3GB mark and then it would start using the way slower RAM, which would affect performance a lot. So if you can afford it, you might wanna go for the 6GB version, just to be on the safe side. Alternatively you can of course lower the settings, that's all up to you.

[Azfoor]

Seeing the hardware you're looking for, watercooling would be pretty pointless. You only really need it if you do serious overclocking with really high-end hardware. For entry-level gaming, you're better of with a decent regular cooler. If you get a big one, you'll probably reach about the same temperatures as with watercooling, but for a way lower price.
Rather invest the money in a SSD right away. Then you don't have to re-install the entire system later, just for adding a SSD. And the (loading) speed improvements you get with a SSD are really huge. If you got one once, you don't want a computer without anymore.

Regarding the GPU: I don't know what other games you play, but 3GB might be a bit low. At least in FS with some mod maps and mods, you can relatively easy hit the 3GB mark and then it would start using the way slower RAM, which would affect performance a lot. So if you can afford it, you might wanna go for the 6GB version, just to be on the safe side. Alternatively you can of course lower the settings, that's all up to you.

Yea you are right about the ssd. And the watercooling have to wait. I'll get it if I'm going to overclock!

So about the gpu, is it better to go with a "smaller" card but with more ram?

[bassaddict]

Even when overclocking a Ryzen 3 (I don't know how much overclocking potential it has), you won't get anywhere close to a point where air cooling won't be enough anymore. With a high-end CPU cooler like a Noctua with a 12 or even 14cm fan, you beat the cheaper water cooling systems regarding noise and price with still staying at relatively low temperatures.

In general it's save to say: unless you have a really high-end system (Ryzen 7 or Core i7 for the X chipsets with GTX1080 Ti or Titan Xp) with massive overclocking, it's better to put your money in performance upgrades than water cooling.



Seeing the performance difference in benchmarks between the 1060 and the 1050 Ti (which has 4GB VRAM), I wouldn't go for the lower-end one. It's better to carefully choose your mods.

[Azfoor]

Even when overclocking a Ryzen 3 (I don't know how much overclocking potential it has), you won't get anywhere close to a point where air cooling won't be enough anymore. With a high-end CPU cooler like a Noctua with a 12 or even 14cm fan, you beat the cheaper water cooling systems regarding noise and price with still staying at relatively low temperatures.

In general it's save to say: unless you have a really high-end system (Ryzen 7 or Core i7 for the X chipsets with GTX1080 Ti or Titan Xp) with massive overclocking, it's better to put your money in performance upgrades than water cooling.




Seeing the performance difference in benchmarks between the 1060 and the 1050 Ti (which has 4GB VRAM), I wouldn't go for the lower-end one. It's better to carefully choose your mods.

Thank you for the input
I have a better idea about how I'm going to build my system now.

And regarding the mods, I'm not going to go overboard with them. It's basically down to seasons, manure mod, bye bales, and a couple of traktors and of course The west coast!

[JohnDeere318]

In all honesty with the GPU, the GTX 1060 is fine, but 6GB will give you better performance, it's been proven. I would spend a bit more for that, you will then be a little more future proof that than tiny 3GB version.

[Azfoor]

Even when overclocking a Ryzen 3 (I don't know how much overclocking potential it has), you won't get anywhere close to a point where air cooling won't be enough anymore. With a high-end CPU cooler like a Noctua with a 12 or even 14cm fan, you beat the cheaper water cooling systems regarding noise and price with still staying at relatively low temperatures.

In general it's save to say: unless you have a really high-end system (Ryzen 7 or Core i7 for the X chipsets with GTX1080 Ti or Titan Xp) with massive overclocking, it's better to put your money in performance upgrades than water cooling.



Seeing the performance difference in benchmarks between the 1060 and the 1050 Ti (which has 4GB VRAM), I wouldn't go for the lower-end one. It's better to carefully choose your mods.

Is the the size of the modsfolder (all the mods combined) related to the usage of ram in the gpu? So if the mods in my modsfolder take upp 2,5gb then i need at least 3gb of ram on my gpu?

[bassaddict]

No, there isn't really a relation between mods folder size and VRAM usage. The VRAM usage depends mostly on the size of the map and the amount of vehicles used in a savegame. A savegame with a big map with many different, big textures, with many different mod vehicles with big textures will cause a way higher VRAM usage than a savegame on a well optimized map with a well calculated and optimized vehicle fleet.

Even without any mods, you can reach quite a high VRAM usage. Turning the settings to very high, playing on Goldcrest Valley, buying every vehicle with every configuration and every placeable will fill up the VRAM. I don't know how high that will go, though, I never tried.

[Azfoor]

No, there isn't really a relation between mods folder size and VRAM usage. The VRAM usage depends mostly on the size of the map and the amount of vehicles used in a savegame. A savegame with a big map with many different, big textures, with many different mod vehicles with big textures will cause a way higher VRAM usage than a savegame on a well optimized map with a well calculated and optimized vehicle fleet.

Even without any mods, you can reach quite a high VRAM usage. Turning the settings to very high, playing on Goldcrest Valley, buying every vehicle with every configuration and every placeable will fill up the VRAM. I don't know how high that will go, though, I never tried.

Okey thanks for the clear answer. I think I'm in the clear because I'm only playing by my self with only a couple of tractors and implements. Not like a big fleet of trucks and tractors on a superbig map.