1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

O.K. Serious question here!!!

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by PurpleFish, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. Nbz

    Nbz Master Guru

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD6850 1000/1150
    As you said it yourself OP, no one said you need the best Hardware in the world to play the games that are out there, however, better hardware will in most cases excell over lesser hardware, otherwise informatics wouldn't be one of the most growing markets in the world.

    Raiga, I dare you to prove me that, your hardware working with that 20% decrease provides the same results as if it was running at full power.
     
  2. Detection

    Detection Banned

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2 x 6850 - CrossFireX
    Why buy hardware in your specs and then underclock it ?

    Completely pointless and a waste of money
     
  3. PinguX

    PinguX Master Guru

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire 280
    +1

    Agreed.
     
  4. DementeD

    DementeD Master Guru

    Messages:
    851
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    AMD "6970" 1000/1500
    I agree with deltatux when recommending anything..actually my first questions is how much do you want to spend and ill build the best rig for that price.
    Cause they say just build me something that runs great...and my next statement is i can build a nice rig for 300 or i can build a disgusting rig for 5000..i need a price point first..then i need to know what you plan to do with it..this way i can put things in it that are needed..

    id add more but others have already stated just about everything. Theres always room for improvement and no low to mid range rig will max every game at 1920x1200..
    yes you can possibly play every game with decent to good graphics and most games you might not even notice a difference in IQ..but impossible that your rig can max out every game out to date...i couldn't do that with my 4870x2 on 1920x1200 max settings..and to me 60fps min is considered maxed smoothly playable..with the exception of crysis..id consider 30fps min smooth in that game.
     

  5. deltatux

    deltatux Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    19,051
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    Not wanting to boast/gloat or anything but I find a lot of people like my build advices because of my adherence to those 3 principles and being as impartial as I can.

    deltatux
     
  6. Mufflore

    Mufflore Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,225
    Likes Received:
    510
    GPU:
    Redacted by NDA
    Show me any thread where someone has said that
    Name any recent quality 3D game where you can get 300+ FPS with high to max quality

    It wont help in all situations and wont help minimum framerates/smoothness if you are CPU limited.

    You have declocked your whole machine by over 20%.
    It is now at least 20% slower, theres no way your games arent slower.
    If you are happy with the performance, more power to you, you wasted your money.
    But asking PC enthusiasts to reduce their standards to your level isnt going to be easy ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  7. Raiga

    Raiga Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GPU
    I'll keep it simple, yes the machine is indeed slow..there is not way its gonna have the same speed when compared to it at normal and definitely not even even comparable against a stable overclock.

    The aim is to just get stable FPS with FPS ideally less or near 59. Which I did, for most games atleast. I am not aiming for 100 or 120 because I use a 60hz display.

    The reason I got 965BE was .. indeed in quest for more speed against my old Phenom X3 8650. But the change in CPU only resulted in one thing, more CPU thermals and with it a tiny boost of speed in games at low resolutions. (this was when I had 5850 card)

    Later pushed CPU for overclocking, to a certain point..didn't find anything satisfactory. Pushed back to normal speeds.

    Then I started to log CPU usage when the processor is at 3.4 GHZ with games,

    1. found that most games didn't dispatch processing to 4 cores perfectly (may be now they do..hopefully..)
    2. found that most games didn't use high overall CPU usage (never reached 100% CPU usage)

    Hence I started various approaches to decrease speeds, then I stumbled on KSTAT10..started messing with it as it was easy and found a way to keep CPU locked in one higher power states.

    AS for the GPU part.

    1. Had 4850s in CrossFire (with my first CPU)
    2. Got 5850 because I am a huge FAN OF SSAA (with my first CPU, during this card duration I got the new CPU)
    3. Now got 6950, because of EQAA.

    Now when i had 5850 itself, I had no pbs with most of the games (except metro in DX11 and its always gonna be a slow on any ATI/AMD single card vs Nvidia).

    Now that I had 6950, I started to mess with overclocking and powertune settings. Overclocking provided more speed boost when compared to Powertune (on my system atleast, with 3.4 ghz. If its wrong, its something to do with my config)..but I didn't need that much speed to constantly render FPS around 59.

    Hence started with -5% powertune, then lol pushed it to -20% powertune..and am happy with it.

    and Metro runs kinda crappy at -20% powertune (which I honestly admit)

    As for the test, I don't usually benchmark nor do I have any benchmarking software, scripts etc...except an MSI afterburner overlay to display FPS on the framebuffer.

    But for the latest game I tried Dragon Age 2 Demo...it ran pretty fine, had no issues with it..at 4xEQAA, 16xAF and all settings high. with CPU@2.2 and GPU@-20%, the FPS was indeed very very playable. except at certain specific locations with FPS dipped lower (related to Game Engine optimization).

    For for games, Most* of the time 60FPS with my settings in the following titles.
    1. ME2 (4xSSAA)
    2. Dragon Age (4xSSAA)
    etc..
     
  8. Mufflore

    Mufflore Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,225
    Likes Received:
    510
    GPU:
    Redacted by NDA
    You incorrectly call people out saying they recommend hardware upgrades to get higher than 300fps but you game such that your framerate crawls at times and you are so happy with that, you declocked your machine.
    Slowing your whole machine stabilises framerate?
    You're calling us out?
    Stranger things have happened I suppose.

    You shouldnt feel compelled to post in threads that arent your cup of tea.
    If you dont want to spend the money on your PC, cant afford to or just like punishing yourself, thats your business, but theres no need to make it ours.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  9. Raiga

    Raiga Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GPU
    I ain't calling anyone buddy, You can either just try it out else just leave the fu'ck out of it..

    But I shall take your advice, I will never ever post on GURU3d forums. I don't even feel there is a cup on this forums..
     
  10. Wokis

    Wokis Active Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX Titan
    Human eye certainly can see over 60 FPS. Stupid myth about 30, 40 and 60 fps being some kind of human limit needs to die (meaning the myth). It's just that many people use 60Hz LCD screens so their screens can't show more than 60 fps and anything over that may lead to image tearing.

    120Hz screens are getting more common on the market now, though, meaning a that a more powerful GPU(and CPU) soon will be even more justified for the enthusiast.

    As for CPU vs GPU, it really depends on the game. Usually the GPU is the thing to upgrade, but when using my regular example, world of warcraft, high performance per CPU core is king.
     

  11. maleficarus™

    maleficarus™ Banned

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX460 800/1600/4000
    Just stick with 5 year old PC hardware then you will be like your using a console then. PS3 came out when? 2006?
     
  12. maleficarus™

    maleficarus™ Banned

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX460 800/1600/4000
    I hear what you are saying and I agree. A lot of people here are silly in the recommendations. For the most part they do not recommend the right stuff or they go way to high. For example, recommending a quad core CPU over a dual core when in fact you could probably count on one hand how many games use more then 2 cores anyways. Another good example is PSU recommendations. I always laugh when I see people saying you need to get an 800W PSU! Then there is the good old VGA recommendations. I know for a fact you could game fine with most titles on a 9600GT card, but people will only recommend at least a GTX460. It is of my opinion that most gamers just regurgitate what they read online without actually trying different hardware.

    Finally another really stupid thing I have seen is people going all nuts over FSAA, it is almost like they go insane if they see a little jaggie on there screen! LOL What a waste of cash and time. Look at my system specs: I would consider this mid-end that can in fact play any game on the market in high details. But I would bet right now 80% of this forum would consider my rig Low-end claiming my dual core can't handle much of anything when in fact it still kicks @ss running 3.6Ghz!
     
  13. maleficarus™

    maleficarus™ Banned

    Messages:
    3,581
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX460 800/1600/4000
    The only game in recent memory that actually needs more then 60FPS would be Quake3. And that is a 1999 release if I remember right. There is no difference in say BF2BC2 having an ave 60 FPS or 82FPS. Your eye is not going to be able to see it I don't care how you want to justify this. To the morons that seem to think they need 300FPS in counter strike source--give your head a shake!! Step away from the momitor and get a job and a girlfriend...geez...lol
     
  14. FlawleZ

    FlawleZ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    Sapphire Radeon R9
    Well CS:Source benefits from more FPS if you play competitively online as the higher your FPS the more shots "register" in the engine. But again we're talking about a dated game that any midrange or higher system should be well into the hundreds of FPS.
     
  15. Dustpuppy

    Dustpuppy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    integrated - fffffffuuuuu
    Well some people on this forum think that an 'enthusiast' is somebody with good hardware and evaluate themselves by their stuff. So it threatens their ego when somebody can't afford the best of the best says they don't need it. Of course the reverse is also true, some enthusiasts cannot afford the best hardware and feel threatened when other people can.

    However, the most basic reason is most people do not post a budget. Below about $1,500 it's possible to keep spending money on a system to gain major performance improvements. Then when you toss in outputs (sound/monitor) it can go up another grand or two and then periphrials, chair, desk, beer fridge etc...

    Furthermore for some people there is no hard budget cap but rather diminishing returns. The question "What should I buy to get to the point where the next 10% performance will cost over $100" is almost never asked but almost always what people really want to know (whether they know they want to or not).

    Then there's other considerations, most folks do not have/post an upgrade plan. It makes no sense to buy a "high end" CPU for a typical gaming rig. Atleast until you consider that buying a low end could force a platform change mid upgrade cycle resulting in the additional expense of a MOBO/RAM purchase instead of just a graphics card. As a result of this I typically recommend a tad more CPU than is needed. Sure you can get away with a athlon 640 or 610 for most games, but that's going to result in additional expense down the road.
     

  16. PurpleFish

    PurpleFish Master Guru

    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX GTX260 c216 @ 780core
    I agree mostly.

    If someone says I want a card to play bfbc2 @ 1920x1200 what card should I get?

    What do you say? A pair of 9800gtx's would do about perfect for under 200usd for the pair.

    A single HD6950 is almost 70usd more.

    I just feel like the mood of this forum is you have to get the 6950 cause it's better.

    Why not have a good discussion about the reasons either way instead of what feels like fanboys pushing what they like best?
     
  17. deltatux

    deltatux Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    19,051
    Likes Received:
    13
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE Radeon R9 280
    Actually, in said case, I would opt for a stronger single card than two weaker cards just because multi-GPU implementations are still not too good, there are still problems with many games not being CrossFire/SLi capable just yet. I'd still give it a few more years before personally recommending them.

    deltatux
     
  18. PurpleFish

    PurpleFish Master Guru

    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX GTX260 c216 @ 780core
    What would be your specific recommendation if I asked what card to get a good gaming experience with bfbc2 @ 1920x1200
     
  19. Dustpuppy

    Dustpuppy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    integrated - fffffffuuuuu
    I ask for their budget, I often won't make a recommendation without one.

    I would recommend a Radeon 6850 over 2 GTX 9800's any day of the week.
     
  20. chinobino

    chinobino Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    GTX980Ti Lightning
    Lets not forget that the CPU affects performance as well and it's best to match the CPU and GPU.

    No point buying a fast card if the CPU can't feed it.
     

Share This Page