I'm not sure if this will sound like a stupid question, or maybe serious PC gamers are different, but when I look at a lot of these GPU benchmarks, and they list super high resolutions, don't most people have at best, a 1080p monitor?
Sure, I know that higher res monitors exist, but example the 2560x1440 ones are close to $1k, but then again, I don't know if it's different with the enthusiast crowd.
I'm not sure if this will sound like a stupid question, or maybe serious PC gamers are different, but when I look at a lot of these GPU benchmarks, and they list super high resolutions, don't most people have at best, a 1080p monitor?
Sure, I know that higher res monitors exist, but example the 2560x1440 ones are close to $1k, but then again, I don't know if it's different with the enthusiast crowd.
Reviewers tend to benchmark stuff at higher resolutions like that so they can be assured they are stressing the GPU and not the CPU.
They usually include low res benches too. I've really become a fan of TPU reviews lately and their benchmarks are usually from 1024x768 to something high like 2560. They have great stuff in there like price comparisons referenced on performance most other sites just make a cursory mention of.
I think the only more in depth reviews out there are those by Johnny Guru on PSUs.
The power consumption of the 7850 makes me wonder if a small-form-factor LAN box, with an Intel quad-core, can be made with an extremely low wattage power supply (around 350 to 400 watts). Maybe even overclock it?
The power consumption of the 7850 makes me wonder if a small-form-factor LAN box, with an Intel quad-core, can be made with an extremely low wattage power supply (around 350 to 400 watts). Maybe even overclock it?
Anybody want to volunteer their dollars?
I could see that working with something like a 430W antec earthwatts. But are you telling me you don't have enough random parts laying around to build that anyway? For shame sir
With only a 7850 though, maybe an i3 would suffice. Or even a Phenom x4 like the 960T.
I could see that working with something like a 430W antec earthwatts. But are you telling me you don't have enough random parts laying around to build that anyway? For shame sir
When I do upgrade, I either parcel out my parts to family/friends or dump it all into the great abyss known as Ebay.
When I do upgrade, I either parcel out my parts to family/friends or dump it all into the great abyss known as Ebay.
Looking at some reviews of the 7850 since you brought it up, my now old 6950 2gb compares quite favorably to it and they cost about the same money. So I'm pretty happy with my selection of a 6950. Should hold up for a few more years. Now I just need to get a new CPU/board to go with it
Ah, but I look wistfully at that 150 watt power draw at load (for the 7850). I'm quite the sucker for maximum efficiency, even at the expense of raw computing ability.
Ah, but I look wistfully at that 150 watt power draw at load (for the 7850). I'm quite the sucker for maximum efficiency, even at the expense of raw computing ability.
It even claims to be multi-GPU capable. Crossfired 7770's or SLI'd GTX 550 Ti's?
Tech powerup's review showed a lot less power consumption than 150W. Closer to 100W. Which numbers were you looking at?
Seems my 6950 uses 35-40 more watts at load than the 7850, but that's expected. Considering I got the same performance 8 months earlier, I'll take that trade off.
I just ran the numbers on what it would cost to upgrade my system around my 6950. About $800 if I keep my current OCZ SSD, PSU, and 6950. Quick convince me not to........
The great thing is the revealed Ivy pricing means that when Ivy comes out the upgrade cost doesn't actually go up. I may have to finally retire my ole E8400. It's crazy though because the thing still runs new games like DX:HR at pretty high frame rates, 40-70. It's holding back my 6950 but not much.
Also you were asking where Kepler is, I just read that additional details are supposed to come out within the week.
You can run SLI on even non-certified PSU's that don't have the necessary power connections. You just have to make sure to spread the load between the 12v connections appropriately and mind your Rail output. I almost did this with my 9800gtx but opted for the 6950 instead. My PSU doesn't have enough connections to run SLI on cards with 2 power connections.
Tech powerup's review showed a lot less power consumption than 150W. Closer to 100W. Which numbers were you looking at?
Seems my 6950 uses 35-40 more watts at load than the 7850, but that's expected. Considering I got the same performance 8 months earlier, I'll take that trade off.
Also you were asking where Kepler is, I just read that additional details are supposed to come out within the week.
Ah, was referring to the overclocked load number - sorry if that caused some confusion. I believe it was Anandtech? or Tom's Hardware? that had pushed the 7850 to 150 watts at load.
TPU just posted some Kepler (GTX 680?) information - hot clocks, 256 bit memory bus, 1536 CUDA cores, and 6000 mhz () GDDR5 memory (2 gigabytes). Not sure whether this combination can live up to expectations, especially with that mere 256 bit bus holding the memory back. The high speed memory will certainly not bring costs down.
Since I finally poured over some of those charts, would I be correct in stating that the GTX560ti card for around 200 dollars is the best combination of performance and value?
Since I finally poured over some of those charts, would I be correct in stating that the GTX560ti card for around 200 dollars is the best combination of performance and value?
Another question I have is what is the benefit of a more expensive hard drive? What do the different RPM speeds mean, and I notice some talking about getting a solid state drive along with a regular hard drive. What is the benefit of it and how much of a difference does it make?
Another question I have is what is the benefit of a more expensive hard drive? What do the different RPM speeds mean, and I notice some talking about getting a solid state drive along with a regular hard drive. What is the benefit of it and how much of a difference does it make?
Generally, the higher the capacity, the more expensive the hard drive. There are a few exceptions to this, but that will be covered later.
RPM speeds reflect on how fast the hard drives read and write data. Your standard consumer RPM's are 5400, and 7200. The latter for desktops, and the former for laptops. There are, however, 7200 RPM hard drives for laptops but they draw more power and thus cut down on battery life (this is not an issue for desktops). In addition to these two speeds, there is also 5900 RPM - this is meant for an energy conserving data drive (storage of pure data, nothing installed here). On the enterprise level, you can see 10 000, and 15 000 RPM hard drives - these have faster read/write cycles but produce a lot more noise.
Most people talk about getting a solid state drive and a mechanical hard drive because SSD's are really expensive (prices are falling, but most are still over $1/gigabyte). If you install your OS and essential programs on your SSD, and chuck everything else into the mechanical drive, you can have the best of both worlds; the snappiness of an SSD and the capacity of a standard mechanical hard drive.
Generally, the higher the capacity, the more expensive the hard drive. There are a few exceptions to this, but that will be covered later.
RPM speeds reflect on how fast the hard drives read and write data. Your standard consumer RPM's are 5400, and 7200. The latter for desktops, and the former for laptops. There are, however, 7200 RPM hard drives for laptops but they draw more power and thus cut down on battery life (this is not an issue for desktops). In addition to these two speeds, there is also 5900 RPM - this is meant for an energy conserving data drive (storage of pure data, nothing installed here). On the enterprise level, you can see 10 000, and 15 000 RPM hard drives - these have faster read/write cycles but produce a lot more noise.
Most people talk about getting a solid state drive and a mechanical hard drive because SSD's are really expensive (prices are falling, but most are still over $1/gigabyte). If you install your OS and essential programs on your SSD, and chuck everything else into the mechanical drive, you can have the best of both worlds; the snappiness of an SSD and the capacity of a standard mechanical hard drive.
But lets say you're using it to game with and your game is on the mechanical hard drive, it wouldnt yield any additional speed would it? Also, if your game is on a mechanical drive, does the speed of that drive improve the performance of that game any?
Since I finally poured over some of those charts, would I be correct in stating that the GTX560ti card for around 200 dollars is the best combination of performance and value?
560 Tis now that the prices have dropped are a good buy. A few months ago when they were still $250 I didn't think so.
However the king bang for buck card is probably still the 6870. Doesn't perform as well as the 560ti but it doesn't cost as much either. In both cases you get what you pay for, which is by in large true in most any PC component.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch
But lets say you're using it to game with and your game is on the mechanical hard drive, it wouldnt yield any additional speed would it? Also, if your game is on a mechanical drive, does the speed of that drive improve the performance of that game any?
The mechanical drive is the slower of the two, so maybe there is confusion. However putting a game on a faster drive vs a slower drive only will yield load time performance increases, not actual in game performance increases.
560 Tis now that the prices have dropped are a good buy. A few months ago when they were still $250 I didn't think so.
However the king bang for buck card is probably still the 6870. Doesn't perform as well as the 560ti but it doesn't cost as much either. In both cases you get what you pay for, which is by in large true in most any PC component.
The mechanical drive is the slower of the two, so maybe there is confusion. However putting a game on a faster drive vs a slower drive only will yield load time performance increases, not actual in game performance increases.
a faster drive would help with some games were they use an engine that's steaming a lot of data during game play.
in that case, you'd see less 'hitching' with the faster drive ...or maybe none at all. on a slower drive, you'd be more likely to see an actual pause in gameplay.
and like u said, typical load times between levels would be faster.
a faster drive would help with some games were they use an engine that's steaming a lot of data during game play.
I can't imagine that coming into play often. For example when I was playing Crysis last month, a streaming type engine, I was doing so from my very slow 6 year old SATA2 drive. No problems.
Maybe lap top hard drives or some "greens". But if my very crusty old seagate drive didn't have that issue I can't imagine many drives having that problem on current games.
I can't imagine that coming into play often. For example when I was playing Crysis last month, a streaming type engine, I was doing so from my very slow 6 year old SATA2 drive. No problems.
Maybe lap top hard drives or some "greens". But if my very crusty old seagate drive didn't have that issue I can't imagine many drives having that problem on current games.
i've seen it happen more times than i wish. not every game is going to do it, but more recently i've seen it occur with Batman Arkham City while travelling around its open world environment.
it seems to happen sometimes with Unreal engine games because of background level streaming being enabled.
I think I might focus on getting the gtx560ti, according to the benchmarks at various games it's at the top for all of them in the resolutions I'll likely use whereas the 6870 is midrange for some of the tests. The price difference is about 40 dollars which isnt enough to motivate me to take a step back. Unless I am missing something here as this thread has been helpful for giving me a much better understanding.
I think I might focus on getting the gtx560ti, according to the benchmarks at various games it's at the top for all of them in the resolutions I'll likely use whereas the 6870 is midrange for some of the tests. The price difference is about 40 dollars which isnt enough to motivate me to take a step back. Unless I am missing something here as this thread has been helpful for giving me a much better understanding.
Exactly, when i say the 6870 is probably best on a dollars basis its on frames per dollar. But if you need what the 560ti provides its the place to be @$225-240. You seem to have it down
I take it you decided to build from scratch then?
That's a decent 6850 price, but I believe some of that savings is MIR. I imagine a lot of the remaining 6xxx cards will go on sale once the 7xxx's trickle into the stores. The selection is still thin.
keep an eye open for deals on the GTX560 Ti 448 core. its very close to a GTX570 in performance.
i've seen them on sale for around $250ish a couple times on NCIX. i'm assuming you could probably find a decent deal on one somewhere if ya look around.
keep an eye open for deals on the GTX560 Ti 448 core. its very close to a GTX570 in performance.
i've seen them on sale for around $250ish a couple times on NCIX. i'm assuming you could probably find a decent deal on one somewhere if ya look around.
IMO, if you are gonna pay $250 get a 7850. It's faster/newer. Also it's 2gb. Not sure exactly when they will hit stores but shouldn't be long. The difference is marginal but the 2gb would put it over the top for myself.
) GDDR5 memory (2 gigabytes). Not sure whether this combination can live up to expectations, especially with that mere 256 bit bus holding the memory back. The high speed memory will certainly not bring costs down.
