1329 replies to this topic

[fxrsniper]

To much AMD bias statements, and I was with AMD for 15 years just recently switched to a i5 2500k. I still use AMD with my business you say price vs performance FX4170 is $90 less than a 2500k but in all reality the 2500k will smoke it. BullDozer is garbage which is why they came out with PyleDriver so fast. Majority of the Hardware post should be removed due to biased and inaccurate information in my opinion

TheFoxyShortBus, on 02 December 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

The point of this post wasn't a game of what if's. its a post about facts or myths when it comes to computers, and I just proved that one of your myth's is actually a fact. As I stated several times, most people won't see the difference in the lane difference, but those who do things at very large resolutions will when the game is demanding enough.

Saying that "well most people won't see it" doesn't mean that it isn't any less fact. It would be the same as saying "I can't see gamma radiation so it must not exist" is a comparable to dismissing something because most won't see it.

Also it isn't a Margin of error, a margin of error is considered less than 5% on loose scientific explanations. Not upwards of 25% or higher. There is a effective boundary here. As to this.
""
That makes absolutely no sense... This has been a problem long through out PCI-E's history, you can do it with 480's or 590's etc etc. And just because something isn't "cost effective" doesn't meant it won't be in real life, I will bet you there are over 5,000 people with those types of set ups and that can push 16 PCI-E lanes past through intended throughput.

I'm not trying to rag on you, but you said provide evidence (which I did) Explained it in a clear and reasonable manner that in fact one of your myth's wasn't a myth at all, but is a fact. Your dismissal was inaccurate because there is a large difference between PCI-E 2.0 and 3.0 (its a factor of 2 improvement) so saturating 16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes is roughly the same as saturating 8 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. SO obviously it will be harder to saturate 16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes (which hasn't been done). SO it only applies to PCI-E 2.0 lanes, which a lot of people who've built a PC in the past couple of years are probably still on because most people won't see the advantage of 3.0 on their systems, but a few can over saturate the lanes and see a performance decrease.

You sir are incorrect there is minimum difference if any between PCI express 2. and 3.0

[fxrsniper]

Vulpesveritas, on 19 December 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

But at the same time Asus has been moving production of all of their products away from Pegatron, which is AsRock. So it wouldn't make sense to be both buying and moving away from a fab unless they had some insane idea of wanting to blow up the fab or something.

I think they call it taking out a competitor without causing a monopoly lol

[Zashel]

fxrsniper, on 19 December 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Bitfenix Prodigy is a tiny micro case and you think it looks better than any CoolerMaster http://www.newegg.co...N82E16811345016 I have the CoolerMaster Haf 932

i prefer my cases not to look plasticy. for an additional $10 i'd take the corsair 600T white edition over the CM 932. i've stopped bothering to look at cases by CM and rosewill even when window shopping just because they dont even look good.

[fxrsniper]

Zashel, on 19 December 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

i prefer my cases not to look plasticy. for an additional $10 i'd take the corsair 600T white edition over the CM 932. i've stopped bothering to look at cases by CM and rosewill even when window shopping just because they dont even look good.

Haf 932 has no more plastic on it than the 600T its steel except for the front piece, it cools better and is bigger. The 600T looks like its plastic, but im not saying its a bad Corsair Cases are over priced. you say $10 more it's $20 more and you get a smaller case with less cooling the Haf XM is $40 less than the 600T and still has better features, cooling, and its steel as well. Also the whole outside of the 600T is plastic but you dont like plastic looking cases right lol CM cases looks just as good if not better and in sone cases cools better as well.

Remember looks can be deceiving doesn't matter if it looks good if its going to cost you more to do less

Edited by fxrsniper, 20 December 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[Kuranya]

This really helped me out. Thanks.

[Vulpesveritas]

fxrsniper, on 19 December 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

I think they call it taking out a competitor without causing a monopoly lol

Yeah doesn't make sense though as they're already the largest mobo manufacturer, AsRock is #3, and Asrock has been putting out better motherboards across the board. I mean, what would AsRock have to gain by being bought back by it's parent company which got rid of it only three years ago?

[Vulpesveritas]

fxrsniper, on 19 December 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

To much AMD bias statements, and I was with AMD for 15 years just recently switched to a i5 2500k. I still use AMD with my business you say price vs performance FX4170 is $90 less than a 2500k but in all reality the 2500k will smoke it. BullDozer is garbage which is why they came out with PyleDriver so fast. Majority of the Hardware post should be removed due to biased and inaccurate information in my opinion


You sir are incorrect there is minimum difference if any between PCI express 2. and 3.0

Yeah, a processor which costs over twice as much will generally smoke the lower priced processor. Otherwise the FX-4170 would be priced higher. However it's not a linear progression, the FX-4170 is ~2/3rds as fast for that half cost, giving the value of price/performance slip over to the AMD processor. Piledriver is significantly better than bulldozer was.

[MidSummer]

Looking to upgrade my machine from

Intel H61 MB
8GB RAM
Intel G620
8800GT 512

Unfortunately the M/B is not Ivy Bridge compatible so I am looking at

GPU: HD 7770 or 7850
CPU: i3 2120 or i5 2310 or similar

I want to run the game at 1920 x 1080

I currently run MWO at low setting with a reduced resolution and I would like to run it at the native resolution at high so I presume that the graphics card needs to be the 7850 but is my G620 good enough or do I need to upgrade the processor as well and if so is the i3 OK or do I need to spend more on the i5??

D.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i recently changed from

AMD Athlon II X2 (2.8ghz)
4GB DDR 2
EVGA Gforce 9500GT (512MB)

to:

AMD Athlon II X4 (3.0ghz)
8GB DDR3
Gigabyte Gforce GT440 (1GB)

i got an FPS increase from 10 - 17 (old with low settings) to 20 - 35 (sometimes 40, but that´s rare) with medium settings...(except for shadows and particles)
the game is running satisfyingly good now for a low-budget upgrade...

interesting part is the following:

my old system had the "4fps bug" happening every 10 matches, i had to relogg, because i got blackscreen or many other things if i didn´t...

with my new system i get these fps drops maybe once every match (depending on how long it goes) for a few seconds, about 10 seconds i´d say, and then it´s okay again... since the same thing happened with the new processor but the old 9500gt, but more often and more bad, i guess that it is partly depending on the processor and on the gfx memory...(tested with the 9500gt, a crappy gt 610(2GB) and now the gt 440... the 610 was actually a heavy downgrade, because it has a 64bit interface, while 9500gt and 440 both have 128bit...and that was to recognize very strong )

all in all i can say, the Athlon II X4 640 is a good low - midrange unit, and the gt 440 is a nice low budget addition (400 series is the same as the "newer" 600 series, so don´t fall for something like the gt630 or such, they are more expensive and even worse in some cases...only saying 64bit interface instead of 128, and 64 is just a pain for games)

my next investment will most likely be a stronger power supply + a faster gfx card (i have a gt560 here, but i dunno if it is okay, since i seam to have a slightly too weak powersupply, it runs, but i get no screen output)

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 20 December 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Silmaril]

Sorry for the late response. Holidays, a marriage all the good stuff. I wanted to make sure that I can scale as I proceed to build the system. The box is kind of an ongoing project for fun, with the option to go trifire later on. I heard that the bulldozer CPU turns highly inefficient in regards to power consumption at higher overclocks..so that made me want to play it safe from the beginning..with moderate success as you can see.

[Suicidal Idiot]

Adrienne Vorton, on 20 December 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

my next investment will most likely be a stronger power supply + a faster gfx card (i have a gt560 here, but i dunno if it is okay, since i seam to have a slightly too weak powersupply, it runs, but i get no screen output)

I've been very happy buying overspecc'd power supplies. I suspect some of my graphics problems of times gone by have been a power supply not able to keep up. Also, some manufacturers have been shown to be 'optimistic' in their power supply ratings.

Another bonus of overspecced power supplies is them running cool. If they're cooler, they're wasting less heat and running the noisy fan less.

Also, I'll never again buy a power supply that doesn't have removable cables. It sucks to have all these extra cables getting in the way that have to be tied up and pushed to the side. Far better to leave them in the bag lying in the bottom of the case.

[sebastianpwns]

I have the t flight hotas x and i never used a flight stick with a mech warrior game how do i set it up?

[Rishak]

IDK if I agree with you about center plate issues with the F.L.Y. 5 by Saitek, has been my main control for years... Not a problem except occasionally with the mapping software.

[Vulpesveritas]

Updated 12/27/2012

I have to say wow at Geforce GTX 670 prices, $300 after MIR is pretty nice.

[Youngblood]

http://www.newegg.co...t=Combo.1173326

Ten-item combo deal today in case you wanted a new rig but didn't want to pay more than the price of a console for it. Of course, you'll still need something a bit better than a 6670 to play MWO comfortably, but it's a start.

EDIT: It is, however, one of their usual supercombos, complete with some of their overstocked parts that could easily be changed out for higher-quality (some times for even less money) components. But still, if either going back to the OP of this thread or looking around for stronger components on the site itself is too much, it doesn't get any easier than this.

Edited by Youngblood, 01 January 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

So, random Russian review site decided to do MWO. We have more applicable hiarchy charts;

Kinda sad that it takes a CPU that powerful to minimum just over 60fps in this game, and that the bottleneck hits at a 660ti. Still, given recent sales, looks like it's between a 660ti and 670 for the best single monitor option.

Though high-res / multi monitor you'll probably appreciate the 7970ghz a lot more.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 01 January 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

New hiarchy chart is out from a Russain review site.


Looks like the BoTW thread is getting FX-4xxx cores in the $600 build, FX-8xxx cores in the $900, and i5s in the $1200 again. Though it's sad to see that the game is either A: so CPU intensive or more likely B: so unoptimised that no un-overclocked CPU is capable of outputting even an average of 60fps, let alone a minimum.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 01 January 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I wouldn't put too much faith in that, those results look a little off to me, seeing as i can run the 2500k and 670 and never see less than 57FPS with Vsync, its in the 100+ range without, but i prefer Vsync on.

[Vulpesveritas]

DV McKenna, on 01 January 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't put too much faith in that, those results look a little off to me, seeing as i can run the 2500k and 670 and never see less than 57FPS with Vsync, its in the 100+ range without, but i prefer Vsync on.

Who knows when they did this testing though. In any case it's good to hear that.
I guess recommendations get to be almost the same as they've been, though this looks to suggest that the engine is fully using modern instruction sets which would be why the FX quads are outperforming the Phenom II's.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I think the problem is, the game is too young to benchmark it with any degree of accuracy, people are getting varied results on systems that at their heart, are the same.

The game is just not optimized or stable enough to trust actual benchmarks from it.

I know a couple of my guy's are using FX series chips, either Quads or 8120's and they suffer alot on the FPS side.
A particular team mate who is smarter with computers than me, is running an 8120 and a reference 6950 flashed into a 6970 which should run this game fine.
His FPS, usually once up close plummets down to low double digit numbers making the game unplayable much like the 8120 i used to have did. (If i could get him to use the 6970 in an intel machine it would be interesting results, and may possibly indicate how much MWO has been coded to favour particular chipsets?)

Don't know if its an issue with 8120's or bulldozer in general, or just bad coding but it should not have that issue.

Edited by DV McKenna, 01 January 2013 - 11:17 AM.