|
Twerk from Home posted:What we've worked out is that we both have 2500K, 8GB DDR3-1600, and Samsung 840 EVOs with RAPID enabled. I'm betting that RAPID is doing something dumb. Had a bit of panic last night when I forgot I had reverted to an older Crusader Kings II patch version but I left some of the newer DLC enabled. It turns out that using the new Iberian unit textures without a supported patch version causes artifacts that look alarmingly similar to GPU artifacts. Had a fun time figuring out why CKII was doing that whereas Far Cry 4 ran fine at nearly max settings, and briefly thought my newish 290 might be taking a nose-dive. Just an example of problems that aren't related to the GPU that look like RMA-time, kinda like when people RMA motherboards and GPUs for no good reason when they're just using a crap PSU:    (these pics don't even capture the window-pane effects I was getting when the map effects were loading - those looked even worse) future ghost fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 15, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
New version 4.1.0 of MSI afterburner: http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/download.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'll keep looking on the web. Does AMD's freesync stuff have the same limitation? I would highly imagine VESA® Adaptive Sync 'suffers' from the same problem. Well, it's a Windows problem, and a game problem. The game would need to signal to the Windows desktop window manager when to update itself. Or vice-versa. Basically, how do you propose it would work? The desktop to be rendered as a static image once the game is focused, and the other way around, or both updating at a similar rate. Basically, I can see this being a giant can of worms, because the desktop can update readily at your monitor's highest refresh rate, but the game can't. But if you decide to then do a bit of scrolling in your browser when the game is under heavy load (and thus is sending a refresh signal at, say, 35 FPS), then your scrolling is going to be choppy if it follows that refresh. Maybe someone has a completely obvious solution I'm missing, but it seems to me the easiest way would be to let the 3D game choose the rate that also Windows renders at when the game is loaded. So, although that's a compromise (although the only one I see), it would work. But Windows would need work for that. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
r0ck0 posted:New version 4.1.0 of MSI afterburner: It seems like 70% of the changelog is about skins or skin engine improvements. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
If multiple windows are visible then the compositor is already handling this case; apps don't all paint at 60Hz, often none do on a given desktop. You can have an app that's totally not responsive and therefore not updating at all, and other apps still render at their present rate. When you have a game running in windowed mode, does it get locked down to the 24Hz of a video that's playing? The compositor takes all the visible windows' swap chains when they get painted, and then composites them together. It then scans out the result at the monitor's refresh rate. Why can't it scan out whenever one of the windows is finished updating and the compositing is complete? The desktop is itself a full-screen exclusive app, really, and it gets regions from other programs the way Chrome does from its rendering processes. (I think that's how it works; corrections welcome.) All I can think of is that DWM itself has assumptions about a fixed frame rate, as an implementation artifact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Do you know what rapid does? I looked it up and it said something about a Samsung Wizard turning 1Gig+ of your Ram into hibernating cache for a SSD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
jkyuusai posted:It seems like 70% of the changelog is about skins or skin engine improvements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:I looked it up and it said something about a Samsung Wizard turning 1Gig+ of your Ram into hibernating cache for a SSD. Yeah. It boosts your read and write speeds to the Gigabyte/s range. poo poo's great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Yeah. It boosts your read and write speeds to the Gigabyte/s range. poo poo's great. Yeah sounds great. Maybe try uninstalling it (or Windows Update KB3004394) and see if the memory leak goes away. http://community.futuremark.com/forum/showthread.php?181955-Shadow-of-Mordor-Low-Memory-Crash http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2445819/replace-memory-sticks-malfunctioning.html http://www.overclock.net/t/1529593/samsung-magician-4-5-update/50 lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
re: *sync and full-screen necessity, I just remembered that I have driver people from AMD visiting on Tuesday, so I'll see what they say about it!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Yeah sounds great. Maybe try uninstalling it (or Windows Update KB3004394) and see if the memory leak goes away. Dude even says he's not using rapid...
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Yeah, but see the point about halo-tier effects. Go look at Shadow of Mordor's 6 GB VRAM Ultra textures compared to High. Tell me you see a difference there. Tell me you'd see a difference when the game was in motion. Play it at 1080p rather than a higher resolution and then tell me you could spot the differences reliably. Because I can't. Sure, for SoM's ultra setting. And...? The problem is that SoM's lower setting - high - still requires 3GB vram. Your argument is that 2GB is fine for the potential 960, 2GB will limit you in more games than SoM - can't select the highest in Titanfall, Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein (at least with respect to shadow maps), MGS:Ground Zero, etc. No one is making the argument that 8GB VRAM cards are required now, but 4GB cards are definitely required if you want to play at the same texture detail as consoles. For a GPU released in 2015, even at $200, I think that's a reasonable expectation. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Now I feel really bad about still having 1 GB VRAM in 2015. I have to run most games with the textures on Medium, which are generally uglier than the previous generation's High. Maybe I should try kickstartering a 970.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Now I feel really bad about still having 1 GB VRAM in 2015. I have to run most games with the textures on Medium, which are generally uglier than the previous generation's High. I just jumped from a 1GB HD 7850 to a 4GB GTX 970. Totally worth it. Not that the 7850 was bad, but the way that the 970 just shrugs off maxed details at 3840 x 2160 is just astounding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Far Cry 4 uses about 2.3-2.5gb of VRAM just at high settings at 1920x1200, so simply staying at 1080 won't help a 2gb 960 be a good idea if more games start having those kinds of requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Just got my new EVGA 970 SSC in today to replace the Gigabyte 970 mini. The mini isn't so mini when it comes to height and Gigabyte measures height differently than any other manufacturer. The height barely fit in my new Air 240 case. I measured it and found it on their website (listed as width) at a little over 5 inches. Amazon lists it at over 8 inches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
So I'm thinking of upgrading my old AMD 5970 to something less janky, new. It still runs things reasonably well on high/ultra (minus fxaa) at 1080p, but it hitches every now and then. I also hate how huge it is, how loud it is, and Crossfire in general. I'd like to go with a single card nVidia solution this time, but I'm so out of the loop on where graphics cards are at the moment. Looking at the newest Tom's Hierarchy chart http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html it seems like the 5970 is still a relatively relevant card and any appreciable improvement is expensive. The system it's going in is a Phenom II X6 1090t @ 4GHz w/ 16GB RAM. I'd just like some input on what would be a decent upgrade from this old card. evilernLe fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
a GTX980 would be a good card to buy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Your bottleneck is going to be the CPU if you move to a 970.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Your bottleneck is going to be the CPU if you move to a 970. That's what I figured as well. I'm not really ready to do a total system upgrade yet. Beyond going that far up the chain, would there be a better card to fit my current system that wouldn't be bottlenecked by my CPU at the moment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
evilernLe posted:That's what I figured as well. I'm not really ready to do a total system upgrade yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Here are the latest rumors about nVidia's GM200 "Big Maxwell" chip. This is nVidia's high-wattage enthusiast part that will be up against whatever high-wattage HBM memory monster AMD unveils. It will be very interesting to see whether nVidia's Maxwell efficiency or AMD's first-to-market with stacked memory carry the benchmarks crown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:a GTX980 would be a good card to buy. what? This is a terrible idea for 90% of people and 100% of people gaming at 1080p. A gtx970 would be an excellent choice however, and you can move it to your new PC when you buy one, which will need to be soon, because that 1090t is well and truly obsolete and holding you back. (I can tell you this from personal experience, I went with a 1090t + 5970 back in 2010 for my previous PC.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Well you can always upgrade your CPU and motherboard at a later date. On some games the card will be underperforming, but it'll be hard to tell until you upgrade the CPU or compare notes. Gotcha. I'll probably grab a GTX980 or 970 and call it a day. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:what? This is a terrible idea for 90% of people and 100% of people gaming at 1080p. Yeah, this chip is OLD (got it in like, 2010 much like you). My motherboard is a new one that supports all of the FX chips, but from what I gather, they aren't much better for games than an overclocked 1090t. Am I wrong on this? If so, I'll look into an FX chip. If not, I'll just ditch this all together and some point and go back to Intel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:what? This is a terrible idea for 90% of people and 100% of people gaming at 1080p. There was no budget or anything, go big or go home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
evilernLe posted:Yeah, this chip is OLD (got it in like, 2010 much like you). My motherboard is a new one that supports all of the FX chips, but from what I gather, they aren't much better for games than an overclocked 1090t. Am I wrong on this? If so, I'll look into an FX chip. If not, I'll just ditch this all together and some point and go back to Intel. Absolutely not - the most powerful CPU AMD sells at the moment struggles in gaming against a $70 intel pentium (and consumes more power than a high end graphics card doing so). AMD lost the plot years ago and it's totally unreasonable to even be contemplating a new AMD cpu. If you need PC purchasing advice you should go to the PCPartpicking thread. Don Lapre posted:There was no budget or anything, go big or go home. A 980 is bad value for money regardless of budget. Unless you have a mITX PC, the next step up from 970 should be two 970s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Here are the latest rumors about nVidia's GM200 "Big Maxwell" chip. This is nVidia's high-wattage enthusiast part that will be up against whatever high-wattage HBM memory monster AMD unveils. It will be very interesting to see whether nVidia's Maxwell efficiency or AMD's first-to-market with stacked memory carry the benchmarks crown. Christ I hope that's all true, 85% more SMMs than the 970  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Be aware, the fully enabled set of SMMs will probably only be in an "enthusiast" / Titan part costing $1000 and up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Any idea when the big Maxwell will actually be available?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Rastor posted:Be aware, the fully enabled set of SMMs will probably only be in an "enthusiast" / Titan part costing $1000 and up. I'm hoping for a 980 ti that like the 780 ti is basically the titan part with the DP floating point stuff disabled. It would still probably be like $700+ though as not to make the 980 even more of a bad deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
BurritoJustice posted:By "maybe not quite as good" do you mean its up to 10 decibels louder and 10 degrees hotter than other custom cards you can get for the same money. How is that not lovely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I just sold a 560ti-448 for $100. I put it on Craigslist for that price assuming it'd get haggled down. Am I missing something or did the guy just really want a video card asap and not care about price? Checking eBay it seemed to be worth half as much?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Schiavona posted:I just sold a 560ti-448 for $100. I put it on Craigslist for that price assuming it'd get haggled down. Am I missing something or did the guy just really want a video card asap and not care about price? Checking eBay it seemed to be worth half as much? Congrats, you ripped a guy off. I don't think you did anything wrong at all and it's not exploitative to post something for too high on Craigslist knowing that people will haggle with you. Far worse happens every day with people posting lovely old budget PC builds with $20 PSUs asking $600-900 for them. You want to talk about poor decisions? I have a friend who upgraded from an nVidia 8800GT to an ATI 5550 with DDR3. It's 3 years newer, it must be better! Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
He definitely spent too much on it, but maybe he just wanted a -448 since it's a weird one-off card as some people collect them. I briefly considered buying a single-PCB 295 to play around with once, and I had a 8800GTS SSC just to torture. You ripped him off but it's his fault for accepting. At least it's not like you sold him an 8500gt or something as a gaming card, like what happened to a friend of mine some years back. edit: Or SLI. VVV future ghost fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jan 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
A lot of people pay extra for GPUs when they're looking to match their current card to attempt SLI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
So if the 960 turns out to be poo poo, what's my upgrade path from my 560 Ti? I love the idea of a 970 but I'm not really looking to shell out $350.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
The 970 seriously seems to be the all-around most bang for your buck card on the market right now. It's a lot of buck, but it's a hell of a bang.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
ryangs posted:So if the 960 turns out to be poo poo, what's my upgrade path from my 560 Ti? I love the idea of a 970 but I'm not really looking to shell out $350. I've been playing devils advocate and always suggesting people check R9-290 pricing, which has been all over the place. I snagged an MSI "Gaming 4G" one for $220, and a friend of mine got a Sapphire 3 fan one for $210. At under $240, the R9-290 is slightly better performance per dollar than a $340+ 970, with the downside of being twice as hot and loud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:At under $240, the R9-290 is slightly better performance per dollar than a $340+ 970, with the downside of being twice as hot and loud. And will use about 30% more power under load.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:23
|
|