Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Custom Game Dev Machine

Author
Message
The Wilderbeast
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 18:53 Edited at: 6th Jan 2011 21:33
Link
It's come to my attention recently that there have been quite a few people on here asking for recommendations for a custom computer for game development. A quick Google on the subject confirms that there aren't actually any places one can go to for a specially-tailored PC of this type and, although the requirements are similar to a gaming PC, there are a few crucial differences.

I am researching the possibility of starting up a small project building custom machines for the likes of us developers which are more suited to a development environment. I'd be interested to have people's comments about two proposed setups:

1. Mid / High Performance Development - £600 (ish)

- Ultra-Quiet Fractal Design Define R3 Case
- 3.2 GHz AMD Phenom Quad-Core Processor
- 4GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz HyperX Memory
- XFX HD 5750 1GB Graphics Card
- Asus 8400GS Silent 512MB Dedicated PhysX Card
- OCZ 32GB Onyx SSD for OS
- 2x 250GB Seagate HHD in RAID
- Option to Pre-Install Useful Developer Tools
- Windows 7 Ultimate x64

1. Budget Development - £350 (ish)

- Quiet Antec One Hundred 100 Case
- 3.0 GHz AMD Athlon Dual-Core Processor
- 4GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz HyperX Memory
- XFX HD 4670 1GB Graphics Card
- 500GBGB Samsung HHD
- Option to Pre-Install Useful Developer Tools
- Windows 7 Home Premium x64


The Budget machine is what could be classed as an entry-level gaming machine which provides a good balance between features and cost.

The Higher performance machine should last most developers quite a few years and I've tried to optimize the build for development. It has an acoustically-insulated case which is virtually silent, a quad-core processor for vastly improved compilation times, a separate 32GB SSD for the OS, two HDD in RAID for improved reliability, a high-end HD 5750 graphics card for graphical work and a passively-cooled 8400GS for dedicated PhysX processing.


I'd be interested to hear people's views as I personally think that there is a fair demand for computers which are actually geared towards development.

Some people might make the comment that you can go out and have one custom built (or do it yourself) which is perfectly valid. But you have to consider that:
a) Some people might not know what to look for in a development PC
b) Systems of the same specs cost £700+ to have custom-built.

Cheers,
Mike


Blitzwerks | Indie Development Team
Back to top
Profile PM
charger bandit
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Nov 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 19:51
Link
I would take the first one,throw out the graphic cards and hard drives and buy:

-Geforce GTX460
-Western Digital HDD,Black Edition of course for speed,maybe two for RAID


Back to top
Profile PM Email
The Wilderbeast
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 20:03 Edited at: 6th Jan 2011 20:06
Link
Hi there, thanks for the reply.

I'm curious as to why you'd want to throw the components you stated. The way I see it, a development machine (especially an affordable indie one) only needs a mid-range graphics card as there is no call for an over-the-top card bar future proofing. That said the GeForce GTX 460 is a fair amount quicker than the HD 5750, although it also costs more. I've tended to steer clear of nVidia cards for builds where budget is an issue as I've found ATI (now AMD) offerings to promise a lot more for the same price. Would a system of this type really need any more juice? The GeForce 8400 GS would stay as well as it is cheap-as-chips and takes the stress off the main GPU when it comes to PhysX processing.

The 32GB SSD is fairly cheap and offers a clean and fast environment for the OS to reside. I didn't rank HDD read/write speed that highly (other than for the OS) and so chose a cheaper option of the 250GB Seagate drives (I've never had one fail).


That is my reasoning, but you've brought up some good points in that it is worth considering whether it would need more Oomph in the graphics department, and whether read/write speeds are more important on a development machine.


Thanks


Blitzwerks | Indie Development Team
Back to top
Profile PM
charger bandit
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Nov 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 20:25
Link
Well I would pick the GTX460 over 5750 and 8400gs just because the 8400gs ones are hot and are kinda defunct(I had two,both died) and also it's faster and cooler than two graphic cards.

For the hard drive,you can have an SSD,but I wouldn't really go for Seagate for reliability sakes,it's from personal experience.


Back to top
Profile PM Email
Phaelax
DBPro Master
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 21:06
Link
Quote: "b) Systems of the same specs cost £700+ to have custom-built.
"

While I couldn't find the same case for sale in the US, I have pretty much every thing else which comes out to a total of £500. Consider the cost of that Fractal case (which I like btw), then the total still comes under £600.



I don't know anything about running a Radeon card and an Nvidia in the same system, but I wouldn't imagine the drivers will play along nicely.

Personally, I only buy WD harddrives. Can't say I'd ever buy a Samsung Spinpoint, or even Hitachi. But in Hitachi's defense, two of their 500GB drives run my NAS and it's been running over a year without a hitch.

"Only the educated are free" ~Epictetus
"Imagination is more important than knowledge..." ~Einstein
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The Wilderbeast
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 21:31 Edited at: 6th Jan 2011 21:32
Link
Quote: "While I couldn't find the same case for sale in the US, I have pretty much every thing else which comes out to a total of £500. Consider the cost of that Fractal case (which I like btw), then the total still comes under £600."


That was my point. To buy the components yourself costs around £600, but if you have the expertise to build a computer then it is the most likely the route you'd go down. For those that don't know how to build a computer, or don't know what components to go for they'd most likely go to a custom system builder. Places like Wired2Fire.co.uk etc. allow you to customize their builds, doing so to match the specs of the system I listed above comes out at £700+. I'm also afraid that we've just had a VAT increase over in the UK an so our prices will be considerably higher than yours.

Quote: "I don't know anything about running a Radeon card and an Nvidia in the same system, but I wouldn't imagine the drivers will play along nicely."

There are modified nVidia Drivers which allows an ATI and an nVidia card to run along side-by-side quite happily without driver conflicts as one is set as the display card, and the other as the PhysX card. I would have to check the legality of doing this in a commercial system first though.


Blitzwerks | Indie Development Team
Back to top
Profile PM
Ocho Geek
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Aug 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 22:31
Link
I would make a dedicated physics card an optional extra or even get rid of it, as most people simply won't need it, physx is a game-based physics engine and all the physx games can be run very well with a 400 series card.

SSD for OS isn't strictly Necessary, a 10k RPM HDD might be better, And I would probably suggest more than 32GB anyway, I'm not sure if you can get one about 64GB

The GTX 460 isn't overrated in any way as far as I can tell, I have one and its brilliant as a single card. I would suggest leaving the option of a better card, though I'd avoid the 470/480 because you'll probably need better cooling. a 500 series would be better

The Gigabyte 1GB GTX 460 OC has great cooling, and should be more than capable of cooling itself

8GB of ram might be a good idea, possibly another option. The GTX 460 or equivalent really thrives with 8GB of ram

Overall, A good idea would be to offer flexible options without ripping the customers of for it. a lot of bigger companies do this

Ocho Geek - Pretending to be a useful contribution to the forums since 2005
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
puppyofkosh
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 22:46
Link
Can the 8400 even be used for physx?

Its not on this list
Back to top
Profile PM
The Wilderbeast
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 6th Jan 2011 23:16 Edited at: 6th Jan 2011 23:19
Link
Quote: "I would make a dedicated physics card an optional extra or even get rid of it, as most people simply won't need it, physx is a game-based physics engine and all the physx games can be run very well with a 400 series card."

Allowing the customer to choose from various options is an idea was intending to implement, the systems I listed were simply examples to allow me to gauge whether my idea was valid and whether I had the right angle or not. I shall look into the 400 series (specifically the 460) as it would appear to be quite a popular card around here.

Quote: "SSD for OS isn't strictly Necessary, a 10k RPM HDD might be better, And I would probably suggest more than 32GB anyway, I'm not sure if you can get one about 64GB"

32GB would be more than enough for just the OS, but it depends on whether the end-user would want to install some of their essential applications to this SSD as well, in which case 64GB would make more sense. Although this would probably be an option as well. From what I've seen 10,000 RPM HDD are fairly pricey, although you get more capacity for the money.

Quote: "The Gigabyte 1GB GTX 460 OC has great cooling, and should be more than capable of cooling itself"

The Fractal Design case listed actually has brilliant cooling options. It's a very versatile case and can do both ultra-quietness as well as extreme cooling so it wouldn't be too much of an issue on the cooling front - just so long as the noise level is kept fairly low by investing in either high-quality fans, or considering carefully where to place a limited number of fans.

Quote: "8GB of ram might be a good idea, possibly another option. The GTX 460 or equivalent really thrives with 8GB of ram"

Again, it could be another option. But personally I think 8GB is pushing it for professional developers, and is overkill for indies.

Quote: "Can the 8400 even be used for physx?"

This here is a very similar setup. Several people have confirmed that the 8400 GS is PhysX capable.

What I don't want to end up doing is introduce too much fragmentation which means that every system being shipped out is completely different.


Blitzwerks | Indie Development Team
Back to top
Profile PM
Slow Programmer
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2006
Location: USA, Tennessee
Posted: 7th Jan 2011 00:25
Link
Quote: "Again, it could be another option. But personally I think 8GB is pushing it for professional developers, and is overkill for indies."


Depends what your customers are making. The world is not just FPSC I am working on some point-and-click adventure games. Rendering the graphics in Carrara or Bryce is already slow, but more memory does help speed up the process. I upgraded from 4 to 8GB and will probably add more.

There are two kinds of computer users. Those that use Macs and those that wish they did.
Back to top
Profile PM
Eminent
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jul 2010
Location:
Posted: 7th Jan 2011 00:43
Link
Quote: "Again, it could be another option. But personally I think 8GB is pushing it for professional developers, and is overkill for indies."
I have 12GB of 1600mhz ram .


Back to top
Profile PM
Phaelax
DBPro Master
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 7th Jan 2011 04:17
Link
I have 4GB and I've nearly pushed those limits before. Running Photoshop (especially CS4 or higher) uses a lot of memory, throw in a virtual machine for eclipse/web sphere dev and a couple extra browser windows, it'll fill up quickly. I think 4GB would be the minimum, 8 would be great but I think your average developer will get by with 4 unless he's doing 3D development.

"Only the educated are free" ~Epictetus
"Imagination is more important than knowledge..." ~Einstein
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
The Wilderbeast
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posted: 7th Jan 2011 08:24
Link
Quote: "I think 4GB would be the minimum, 8 would be great but I think your average developer will get by with 4 unless he's doing 3D development."

Which is what I was targeting these builds at (3D). Looks like 8GB is a sensible default option.


Blitzwerks | Indie Development Team
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-05-22 14:52:21
Your offset time is: 2025-05-22 14:52:21