Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 7:05:50 GMT
Posting my GPU history, because why not?
GeForce FX 5600 GeForce Ti 4400 GeForce 6800 GT GeForce 7800 GTX GeForce 7800 GTX SLI GeForce 8800 GT GeForce GTX 650 GeForce GTX 760 GeForce GTX 980
Ya I'm an Nvidia guy. I had a few PCs with "3D accelerators" in the 90s, but I can't remember exactly what they were. At least one of them was a 3DFX something or other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 7:58:38 GMT
My GPU History: GeForce 9800 GTX Radeon HD 3850 + 3870 Crossfire Radeon HD 7770 GeForce GTX 580 GeForce GTX 1060 Might as well put my computer history as well. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Some OEM Acer Board 4 GB DDR2 GeForce 9800 GTX Then I got my own rig... AMD Phenom II X4 955 Some AM3 Gigabyte board 6 GB DDR2 Radeon HD 3850 + 3870 Crossfire AMD Phenom II X4 955 Some AM3 Gigabyte board 6 GB DDR2 Radeon HD 7770 AMD Phenom II X4 955 MSI 970A-G43 12 GB DDR3 (assorted memory, was unstable) Radeon HD 7770 AMD FX-6300 MSI 970A-G43 8 GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 580 AMD FX-6300 MSI 970A-G43 8 GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 1060
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2016 8:31:23 GMT
Okay I'll bite (I'm not counting the aforementioned 90s PCs, all I remember is I had a couple of 486s and a Pentium II at some point)
AMD Athlon XP 3200 Some Socket A board 512MB DDR GeForce FX 5600
AMD Athlon XP 3200 Some Socket A board 512MB DDR GeForce Ti 4400
AMD Athlon XP 3200 Some Socket A board 512MB DDR GeForce 6800 GT
AMD Athlon 64 3500 Some Socket 939 Asus board 1GB DDR GeForce 6800 GT
AMD Athlon 64 3500 Asus A8N-SLI (needed a new board when PCI-E became a thing) 1GB DDR GeForce 7800 GTX
AMD Athlon 64 3500 Asus A8N-SLI 1GB DDR GeForce 7800 GTX SLI
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 Asus A8N-SLI 2GB DDR GeForce 7800 GTX SLI
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 Asus A8N-SLI 2GB DDR GeForce 8800 GT
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400 Asus A8N-SLI 2GB DDR GeForce GTX 650
AMD FX-8320 MSI 990FXA-GD65 8GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 650
AMD FX-8320 MSI 990FXA-GD65 8GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 760
AMD FX-8320 MSI 990FXA-GD65 16GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 760
AMD FX-8320 MSI 990FXA-GD65 16GB DDR3 GeForce GTX 980
|
|
Underclass King
Retired Staff
Join Date: Mar 16, 2015 1:55:09 GMT
Posts: 902
Likes: 1,822
Location: United States of America
Last Online: Apr 24, 2024 1:44:54 GMT
|
Post by Underclass King on Aug 8, 2016 22:47:40 GMT
I'm not really sure if this is the correct thread to post this in, but I was hoping someone could answer a question I had regarding a laptop I recently bought. So I recently bought the MacBook Pro (256 GB with 8 GB RAM) for college which is starting pretty soon. Although I'll also be using it for personal use too especially during the summer. I have a lot of music (probably around like 20 GB - maybe a bit more) and I was wondering that if I were to download all these songs into my iTunes library on the laptop, would that affect the performance of it overall in any way? Someone told me that downloading it all could "cloud it up(?)" and make programs run slower but I find that odd since I'd still be over 230 GB in storage? Although I don't know too much about computers so maybe it doesn't have too much to do with the storage but something else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 4:13:45 GMT
I'm not really sure if this is the correct thread to post this in, but I was hoping someone could answer a question I had regarding a laptop I recently bought. So I recently bought the MacBook Pro (256 GB with 8 GB RAM) for college which is starting pretty soon. Although I'll also be using it for personal use too especially during the summer. I have a lot of music (probably around like 20 GB - maybe a bit more) and I was wondering that if I were to download all these songs into my iTunes library on the laptop, would that affect the performance of it overall in any way? Someone told me that downloading it all could "cloud it up(?)" and make programs run slower but I find that odd since I'd still be over 230 GB in storage? Although I don't know too much about computers so maybe it doesn't have too much to do with the storage but something else? Solid state drives do get slower once they fill with data but not until they are nearly 90% full. Ordinary hard drives do not slow but they will get fragmented when nearing capacity. As long as you have enough space for the page file (a few GB) you should be good. When drives get slower, copying/pasting files is slower and loading programs is slower but the programs themselves do not slow. How fast a program loads when launched depends on the drive's speed but after that the RAM and CPU does all the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 7:49:03 GMT
I'm not really sure if this is the correct thread to post this in, but I was hoping someone could answer a question I had regarding a laptop I recently bought. So I recently bought the MacBook Pro (256 GB with 8 GB RAM) for college which is starting pretty soon. Although I'll also be using it for personal use too especially during the summer. I have a lot of music (probably around like 20 GB - maybe a bit more) and I was wondering that if I were to download all these songs into my iTunes library on the laptop, would that affect the performance of it overall in any way? Someone told me that downloading it all could "cloud it up(?)" and make programs run slower but I find that odd since I'd still be over 230 GB in storage? Although I don't know too much about computers so maybe it doesn't have too much to do with the storage but something else? T1 is correct. Assuming you have a solid state drive (do Macbooks even come with hard drives anymore?), a mere 20GB of music won't make any difference to your computer's performance. Keep ~30GB of free space on your drive and you should be fine. If programs don't load as fast as they used to, it's probably getting too full. Never defrag a solid state drive. However, I've heard nothing but bad things about iTunes, including stuff about it being a bloated monstrosity that slows your computer down. Use your own discretion.
|
|
Underclass King
Retired Staff
Join Date: Mar 16, 2015 1:55:09 GMT
Posts: 902
Likes: 1,822
Location: United States of America
Last Online: Apr 24, 2024 1:44:54 GMT
|
Post by Underclass King on Aug 9, 2016 19:14:10 GMT
Thanks for answering my question guys! It's really nice to know that the 20GB won't make a difference. I think I'll be able to maintain at least 30 GB of free space as I'll still have around 200 after 20 GB of music, or at least I hope I will
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 4:03:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 8:10:05 GMT
Eh? Stick an FX-8*** CPU in there and bump your RAM up to 16 GB, and your build would be pretty identical to mine, if not better. Easy upgrade. It's no monster, but it should be fine for 1080p gaming for another 2-3 years.* * ETA: Okay perhaps I'm being a little overgenerous there. Maybe 1-2 years is more realistic, considering the CPU. Piledriver is a 4-year old architecture that's going to be outmoded by Zen in a few months, not to mention Intel is already a better choice for gaming. OTOH I see so much of this "FX CPUs suck" on the internet that's equally hyperbolic. Less good ≠ terrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 21:21:13 GMT
Eh? Stick an FX-8*** CPU in there and bump your RAM up to 16 GB, and your build would be pretty identical to mine, if not better. Easy upgrade. It's no monster, but it should be fine for 1080p gaming for another 2-3 years.* * ETA: Okay perhaps I'm being a little overgenerous there. Maybe 1-2 years is more realistic, considering the CPU. Piledriver is a 4-year old architecture that's going to be outmoded by Zen in a few months, not to mention Intel is already a better choice for gaming. OTOH I see so much of this "FX CPUs suck" on the internet that's equally hyperbolic. Less good ≠ terrible. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it to upgrade a dead socket. The thing is, it seems most games I play are not optimized for multicore and prefer single core performance, something FX processors aren't very good at. I still feel like I am CPU limited in some games. I'm planning on switching to a Skylake i3, which has far better single core performance but worse multi core performance (I don't render video so it would be better for me) and then upgrade to a Kaby Lake i5 later down the road. Still hopeful for Zen, however. I'm tired of Intel's $30 overclocking tax for an "unlocked" processor and having to drop another $50 for a mobo with a chipset that can actually overclock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 7:19:23 GMT
Eh? Stick an FX-8*** CPU in there and bump your RAM up to 16 GB, and your build would be pretty identical to mine, if not better. Easy upgrade. It's no monster, but it should be fine for 1080p gaming for another 2-3 years.* * ETA: Okay perhaps I'm being a little overgenerous there. Maybe 1-2 years is more realistic, considering the CPU. Piledriver is a 4-year old architecture that's going to be outmoded by Zen in a few months, not to mention Intel is already a better choice for gaming. OTOH I see so much of this "FX CPUs suck" on the internet that's equally hyperbolic. Less good ≠ terrible. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it to upgrade a dead socket. The thing is, it seems most games I play are not optimized for multicore and prefer single core performance, something FX processors aren't very good at. I still feel like I am CPU limited in some games. I'm planning on switching to a Skylake i3, which has far better single core performance but worse multi core performance (I don't render video so it would be better for me) and then upgrade to a Kaby Lake i5 later down the road. Still hopeful for Zen, however. I'm tired of Intel's $30 overclocking tax for an "unlocked" processor and having to drop another $50 for a mobo with a chipset that can actually overclock. I completely agree. I didn't mean to imply that you should, only that you could. Save your money. As far as I understand it, it's not that games aren't multithreaded (i.e. optimized for multicore), but rather the quality of Intel's cores are simply better than AMD's. Whatever the case, it's a proven fact that Intel is the way to go right now for gaming. Zen might change everything up, but we'll have to wait and see. That being said there's a lot of exaggerated hate towards FX CPUs. Perhaps my GTX 980 is being held back by my 8320, but I defy anyone to show me a game where the bottleneck is really apparent. I'm already getting 60-100 fps in games like GTA V, Doom, The Witcher 3, Battlefront, Project Cars, Rise of the TR, Mirror's Edge Catalyst etc. - all @ 1080p, pretty much max settings with some minor tweaks. Future-proofing is hard to estimate, but I reckon I'll be fine for at least another year. Hopefully two. Just curious, what games do you feel you're CPU limited in? Personal preference maybe, but your framerates seem very decent to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 22:22:20 GMT
It doesn't seem like it would be worth it to upgrade a dead socket. The thing is, it seems most games I play are not optimized for multicore and prefer single core performance, something FX processors aren't very good at. I still feel like I am CPU limited in some games. I'm planning on switching to a Skylake i3, which has far better single core performance but worse multi core performance (I don't render video so it would be better for me) and then upgrade to a Kaby Lake i5 later down the road. Still hopeful for Zen, however. I'm tired of Intel's $30 overclocking tax for an "unlocked" processor and having to drop another $50 for a mobo with a chipset that can actually overclock. I completely agree. I didn't mean to imply that you should, only that you could. Save your money. As far as I understand it, it's not that games aren't multithreaded (i.e. optimized for multicore), but rather the quality of Intel's cores are simply better than AMD's. Whatever the case, it's a proven fact that Intel is the way to go right now for gaming. Zen might change everything up, but we'll have to wait and see. That being said there's a lot of exaggerated hate towards FX CPUs. Perhaps my GTX 980 is being held back by my 8320, but I defy anyone to show me a game where the bottleneck is really apparent. I'm already getting 60-100 fps in games like GTA V, Doom, The Witcher 3, Battlefront, Project Cars, Rise of the TR, Mirror's Edge Catalyst etc. - all @ 1080p, pretty much max settings with some minor tweaks. Future-proofing is hard to estimate, but I reckon I'll be fine for at least another year. Hopefully two. Just curious, what games do you feel you're CPU limited in? Personal preference maybe, but your framerates seem very decent to me. GTA V, Fallout 4, and Modded Skyrim are my CPU intensive games. Most of the time the framerates are good, but the minimum framerates are not as good. I haven't done any professional benchmarking, but there were still dips below 60 FPS that were very noticeable. Framerates in performance heavy parts (Downtown Los Santos in GTA V, In the city in Fallout 4) are still not very good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 7:16:53 GMT
I completely agree. I didn't mean to imply that you should, only that you could. Save your money. As far as I understand it, it's not that games aren't multithreaded (i.e. optimized for multicore), but rather the quality of Intel's cores are simply better than AMD's. Whatever the case, it's a proven fact that Intel is the way to go right now for gaming. Zen might change everything up, but we'll have to wait and see. That being said there's a lot of exaggerated hate towards FX CPUs. Perhaps my GTX 980 is being held back by my 8320, but I defy anyone to show me a game where the bottleneck is really apparent. I'm already getting 60-100 fps in games like GTA V, Doom, The Witcher 3, Battlefront, Project Cars, Rise of the TR, Mirror's Edge Catalyst etc. - all @ 1080p, pretty much max settings with some minor tweaks. Future-proofing is hard to estimate, but I reckon I'll be fine for at least another year. Hopefully two. Just curious, what games do you feel you're CPU limited in? Personal preference maybe, but your framerates seem very decent to me. GTA V, Fallout 4, and Modded Skyrim are my CPU intensive games. Most of the time the framerates are good, but the minimum framerates are not as good. I haven't done any professional benchmarking, but there were still dips below 60 FPS that were very noticeable. Framerates in performance heavy parts (Downtown Los Santos in GTA V, In the city in Fallout 4) are still not very good. Hmm. It's been a while since I fired up Fallout 4 but I remember the performance being a bit shaky at launch, especially in the cities. I've heard that GTA V can be a memory hog under certain conditions, so I wonder if your 8GB of RAM is the culprit? What does task manager tell you? As for modded Skyrim, remember that you mod games at your own risk, and some of those graphics mods are known to have a huge impact on performance (I tried some of them out, sure enough they brought my PC to its knees)... OTOH Skyrim is an old ass game, and it might well be a case of poor single core performance for both of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 7:20:41 GMT
Good news, my friend is willing to sell me his i5-2500k for $100 once he upgrades to an i7-2600k. It's an old chip on a dead socket, but it's still very powerful even to today's standards, especially when overclocked. Just gotta get a P67 or Z77 motherboard and I'm good until Cannon Lake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: Apr 25, 2024 6:37:04 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 7:55:47 GMT
GTA V, Fallout 4, and Modded Skyrim are my CPU intensive games. Most of the time the framerates are good, but the minimum framerates are not as good. I haven't done any professional benchmarking, but there were still dips below 60 FPS that were very noticeable. Framerates in performance heavy parts (Downtown Los Santos in GTA V, In the city in Fallout 4) are still not very good. Hmm. It's been a while since I fired up Fallout 4 but I remember the performance being a bit shaky at launch, especially in the cities. I've heard that GTA V can be a memory hog under certain conditions, so I wonder if your 8GB of RAM is the culprit? What does task manager tell you? As for modded Skyrim, remember that you mod games at your own risk, and some of those graphics mods are known to have a huge impact on performance (I tried some of them out, sure enough they brought my PC to its knees)... OTOH Skyrim is an old ass game, and it might well be a case of poor single core performance for both of us. Yup, my RAM probably holding me as back. 8GB isn't enough for me, it runs at near 50% usage with only Chrome and Steam on. In Skyrim, I noticed my lag was only in cities, so I removed some city mods I installed and it helped. It was most noticeable when looking at both Whiterun and the Throat of the World from outside Whiterun, but it turns out that everyone's FPS dies there. I also recently found out my motherboard only supports speeds of up to 1866MHz, so my 2400MHz RAM isn't being used to its full potential. Additionally, my CPU cooler blocked 2 of my memory slots, despite being advertised of having a "compact dimension", so I can't really upgrade to more RAM.
|
|