dave1029
-
Posts
157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dave1029
-
-
CPU is solid, good amount of ram, GPU is a little lacking for high demand graphics, but for casual gaming, it should work as a nice card. What I mean by casual gaming: One monitor, 1920x1080, typically staying away from really high demand ENB's and Sweetfx. In short, it will handle most things easy, but try ramping up the graphics and/or resolution, and it will struggle.
-
I must say, it looks amazing... also AMD finally fixed the whole crossfire thing with it... too bad ENB doesn't work. My single card can't handle it at that resolution with ENB... It can with both... but the ENB flickers... Oh... opportunity costs... why must you hurt me.
-
Windows will walk you through it when you buy Windows 8.1.
-
I wish they would focus on creating cards with more power, rather than get into this pissing match with the optimization.
-
I would definitely do the OS first. Then your RAM, then your CPU. GPU can come last, since it is a decent model.
-
If you want to play these games at good framerates you're going to have to shell out some money, I'm sorry. You can downgrade your CPU and GPU to save a bit of money, but that might get it into the $500 range. That's as low as you can really go for what you want to do.
-
1. Depends on the case.
2. Yes, you can sell your current GPU
3. Yes they can run on 64bit.
4. You need a large flash drive to do so, but it is possible. Mods and saves are simple to transfer. You just copy the mods in your data folder and the saves folder in your documents and put them on your flash drive.
5. I would recommend an I7.
6. A 7970 or GTX 680 is a good step up without breaking the bank. 7970 runs hot and uses more electricity but is slightly cheaper than the Nvidia counterpart. Between these two? I would go Nvidia, personally.
7. Windows 7 x64 bit or Windows 8.1 x64 bit is a good plan. Better to do it sooner rather than later.
8. 16 GB of RAM is becoming the standard. 8 GB of RAM is ok, for now.
9. 2 TB HDD or 500 GB SSD would be my suggestions. SSD being the more expensive option.
10. Cost? With my recommendations and the 2 TB HDD... Maybe $600.
EDIT: I should point out, with the GPU, the 7970 is cheaper and easier to find. Honestly they are kind of a wash. I would get the easiest to find. The 7970 is $200, and the 680 is $250. Problem is, the 680 original 2 GB version is hard to find. The 4 GB version is $350.
-
I would go with a desktop, with an AMD processor, AMD GPU, 8 GB RAM, AM3+ socket MOBO, and a 750 Watt PSU. You can get a strong system that can play modern games at high settings for $1200. Even less if you don't mind going medium settings for the state of the art games.
-
Agree with above. I get mine built for me because the company that does it can get deals on ordering the various parts. If I built my PC myself, it would cost $4500. But the people who are making it for me only charged $3900, and that is including the charge of the labor spent building it. So it saved me $600. Just something to check. Doesn't hurt getting a quote and then adding up the parts you want yourself. See which is cheaper.
-
8 is still acceptable. Thoughts on the new lower level API's, Thor?
-
Update all graphics drivers... your CPU looks plenty strong for the game, however you didn't post your graphics card. Your ram should be sufficient for anything lower than the ultra settings. It is probably your GPU because that's what causes stuttering. Either the information is not being processed by the GPU fast enough or the CPU cannot feed the information fast enough. In your case the CPU is fine.
-
CPU- Intel I7 4930k
GPU- Radeon R9 295x2
SSD- 1 TB Samsung
RAM- 16 GB
Thoughts? Concerns? Suggestions?
-
They also claim that the r290x suffers from throttling issues, when in turbo mode. So I can see that also effecting performance. Wait until we see some aftermarket coolers to judge that effect.
The 295x2 has no throttling issues since the stock version (from AMD) is liquid cooled. In a review, at 4k textures, pushed to 100% load, the card topped at 68C. While the 290X does, the 295x2 does not.
-
From what I understand, the R9 290x can match the 780 TI but only with really good aftermarket cooling. The R9 is great for the first 30 minutes but then tanks in performance.
-
AMD's R9 295x2 ($1,500) beats out Nvidia's Titan-Z ($3,000). Apparently they pulled the launch because it just could not compete with the AMD equivalent. This is a victory against PC gaming tyranny. Down with Nvidia's overpriced crap!
-
Power is not power. Optimization is everything. Look at X Rebirth. Secondly Intel "is more powerful" is not necessarily true. They are better at single threaded applications and games. AMD ties or beats Intel in multithreading- which is what next gen games are going to utilize.
I'm not so sure about that. Granted, I have a weak CPU (Phenom II 955 x4 at 3.2Ghz), but even multithreaded it doesn't compete with Intel equivalents at the price range. For reference, I suggest looking at Dragon Age: Origins. It uses three cores and receives a 40% performance increase with three cores compared against two. In other words, it's the most dependent on CPU power and multithreading of any game I've seen. An i3 at 2.5Ghz can outperform my Phenom II even in a game as reliant on multithreading as DAO, according to the benchmarks.
Furthermore, a great many AMD octa-core processors are really just quad-cores with the AMD equivalent of hyperthreading. I'm doubtful that they're going to hold up very well next-gen. (The XBone is already running some games at 720p again, simply abysmal). The PS4 and Xbone are clearly budget platforms this time around, it's more likely Microsoft and Sony went AMD solely to cut costs.
I'm actually much more impressed with AMD's new video cards compared to their CPUs.
You're mostly right, but when we say multithreading, it's more than just using all the cores. The new consoles are using weaker versions of my processor. So, hopefully, this specific architecture will work very well with the newer games as those games must be designed for that architecture. Intel's architecture has been favored in the past because it wasn't hard to code for. A lot of games were single threaded... including DAO. Go look at the benchmarks for crysis 3- the only game I know of today that is truly multithreaded.
-
That's normal working temperatures of the 7970's. That's what sets amd apart, at least when it came to the 7900 series, they ran really cool.
Really? I always heard they ran hot.
-
I can already tell you the water is caused by ENB or you fiddling with the water settings in the .ini. As for the stutter... it happens. You have an unstable game (relatively speaking). What's your hardware though?
-
power is power. Intel puts out more of it in comparing CPUs.
Not necessarily.
You see, there's a myth going around that AMD CPUs get a performance boost on Linux up to a point where an octa-core AMD can outperform an Intel i7 in multi-threading, while per-core gap is reduced. It's tied to Intel's C++ compiler, and Intel was even forced to remove code from their compiler because it was designed to under-perform on non-Intel processors. Another of AMD's problems is that their Open64 compiler is designed for Linux only (primarily Red Hat) so they have no rivaling compiler on Windows.
There were also some cases where an AMD CPU would perform much better if identified as Genuine Intel instead of Authentic AMD in software compiled with Intel's compiler, so there's that too.
Back to the myth - a lot of proprietary Windows software is compiled using Intel's compiler, a lot of games and benchmarks included. On the other hand, Linux software is compiled using GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) which is equally optimized for both Intel and AMD, hence the "AMD performs faster under Linux than it does under Windows" myth.
Finally, here's the link where you can find a wall of text about Intel's compiler.
Is it true that AMD CPUs are being deliberately crippled through an Intel compiler? I got no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.
EDIT: Something I overlooked when I wrote this post...
290x in crossfire? so you want a computer and a heater all in one
Heh, it's winter right now.
A single R9 290 or 290X reaches 94oC alone in a well ventilated case, while it begins throttling only a few oC higher than that, at temperature it also tends to reach occasionally in single-card configuration. In Crossfire, the bottom card will heat up the upper card further, and you'll have non-stop throttling with 1/3 the performance of a single R9 290/290X.
Which is why I asked you which aftermarket cooling you're using for the cards - you need aftermarket cooling even without CF if you want optimal functionality, it's practically mandatory in CF. Two Arctic Cooling Accelero III coolers cost 150$, and two R9 290s with those cost 250$ more than a single R9 290X, that way you have a much quieter operation and lower temperatures so those cards can actually work, with about ~3% lower performance than with R9 290X cards (on stock, they can be easily overclocked with aftermarket cooling).
With stock cooling, they will not work right, and that's something I can guarantee you.
I have a good cooling case. It was expensive. I'll just crank up the fans on those. I currently have a 7970 and it doesn't even get into the 60's under max load.
-
Not to mention all the optimization will be for AMD Vishera architecture because of consoles.
People are looking way to much into this. Just because the consoles are using AMD CPUs and whatever GPUs and whatnot, doesnt mean that if you have such for PC your games will run that much better. power is power. Intel puts out more of it in comparing CPUs. idc what the new consoles have, if you have a good CPU youll run next gen games without noticing a difference between models.
im not trying to argue about Intel vs AMD. my PC has an Intel. my budget builds use AMD. im just saying all this "Well the consoles use X so if my PC uses X ill get an edge" talk is such bologna,
actually ive been laughing at any comment recently where people are worried about the new consoles affecting their PCs. yes the new consoles are an upgrade. their tech is great, but its not top of the line. any good gaming PC built in the last few years is gunna play any next gen game. every new PC game was already "next gen" Witcher, and Crysis and Metro were already harder to run games then any console next gen game will be. if your PC can run that youll be fine. the new consoles arent so powerful they are going to give good PCs a run.
Power is not power. Optimization is everything. Look at X Rebirth. Secondly Intel "is more powerful" is not necessarily true. They are better at single threaded applications and games. AMD ties or beats Intel in multithreading- which is what next gen games are going to utilize.
-
290x in crossfire? so you want a computer and a heater all in one
Heh, it's winter right now.
-
The crossfire micro stutter was fixed recently guys. You just turn on frame-skip. Eh, $400 is a little much for basically an overclocked 8350. I have a great cooling case that currently can keep my 7970 below 70 Celsius even on max load. Btw I would never go with an intel processor now. Not with games now starting to use proper multithreading. In fact, AMD puts Intel to shame when things are properly threaded among all cores. Not to mention all the optimization will be for AMD Vishera architecture because of consoles.
-
@ Werne- About $1500. I'm upgrading so I already have the proper case for it with quite a few fans. It should be fine.
@hoof- Because I like AMD processors based on that architecture being used for upcoming consoles. I will get PCI Express 3 when an AMD board comes out. Plus I hate Intel. I think they overcharge. I already have a decent rig now, I'm just upgrading the graphics and processor.
-
Hey guys, I'm forking out a lot of money for this new rig and was wondering if y'all think it's a good buy.
Processor: AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHZ
RAM: 8GB
GPU: 2x AMD R9 290X 4GB in Crossfire
Motherboard: AMD PCI Express 2.0, AM3+
Power Supply: 1200
Need some help with ENB RealVision (low fps)
in Skyrim LE
Posted
It's your CPU, dude.
Might be able to try this first: http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/5695/?
If that doesn't work, lower your shadows. If even that doesn't work, your GPU is just struggling, bad. But that GPU should be fine... I mean it was considered relatively high end when Skyrim launched.