New rig I'm getting

3 Pages
←
1
2
3
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

New rig I'm getting "It's about bloody time"

#31 Posted 27 January 2011 - 04:26 PM

MusicallyInspired, on Jan 27 2011, 12:40 PM, said:

No, it's my assistant. He stands in for all my photos.

The motherboard I was going to get is out of stock on NewEgg. Crap.

Dude, assistants are awesome, aren't they?

#32 Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:48 PM

I know, right!

#33 Posted 28 January 2011 - 01:50 AM

MusicallyInspired, on Jan 27 2011, 10:48 PM, said:

I know, right!

Green Lantern fan are we?

#34 Posted 28 January 2011 - 10:05 AM

Nope.

#35 Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:46 AM

My new monitor just came in today. Ordered it on Tuesday. That's fast! 27" 1080p Asus. It is niiiiiiiiiiice.

#36 Posted 04 February 2011 - 07:03 PM

27" for 1080p? Seems you got screwed DPI-wise. The optimal size for 1080p is 23", above that you're just getting bigger pixels for no reason. Also, 16/9 really sucks for day-to-day use; too bad 16/10 screens seem to be phasing out.

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#37 Posted 05 February 2011 - 12:30 AM

I knew what I was buying. It may sound strange, but I'm ok with it. It works for me.

Kathy

#38 Posted 05 February 2011 - 02:08 AM

Plagman, on Feb 5 2011, 06:03 AM, said:

Also, 16/9 really sucks for day-to-day use; too bad 16/10 screens seem to be phasing out.

How is 16:10 better than 16:9 for day-to-day use?

Plagman

Former VP of Media Operations

#39 Posted 05 February 2011 - 02:36 AM

Taller is better for anything except watching movies; reading any kind of content, browsing, working. 16/10 resolutions are usually always a superset of the HD standards, so there's no trade-off involved; it's just strictly superior. 4:3 is better for work, but then you start getting the movie trade-off. The best thing for work is a 4:3 monitor rotated in portrait mode. I use two of these around my 30".

blackharted

#40 Posted 07 February 2011 - 01:41 PM

MusicallyInspired, on Jan 28 2011, 10:05 AM, said:

Nope.

Then you must have seen the movie trailer. On topic I'm upgrading fairly soon.

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#41 Posted 07 February 2011 - 04:30 PM

No. I haven't. I'm completely uninterested in comic book movies right now. They're all overdone.

blackharted

#42 Posted 09 February 2011 - 03:22 AM

MusicallyInspired, on Feb 7 2011, 05:30 PM, said:

No. I haven't. I'm completely uninterested in comic book movies right now. They're NOT overdone in any way.

Fixed.

How's the new rig?

This post has been edited by blackharted: 09 February 2011 - 03:22 AM

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#43 Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:18 AM

Don't got it yet. I have to wait until the end of March or so before Sandy Bridge processors and P67 mobos become available again.

Shawneth

#44 Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:29 PM

Could I have your computer you are using now

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#45 Posted 15 February 2011 - 06:25 AM

Nope. That's going to my wife.

Jeff

#46 Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:36 PM

MusicallyInspired, on Feb 9 2011, 11:18 AM, said:

Don't got it yet. I have to wait until the end of March or so before Sandy Bridge processors and P67 mobos become available again.

I haven't had any slowdowns with my SATA chipset, but maybe it degrades over time instead of all at once. That's why they pulled all those motherboards, because of the SATA flaw that only affects about 5% of motherboards or something.

This post has been edited by Jeff: 15 February 2011 - 11:37 PM

Splat

Eat Shit and...

#47 Posted 16 February 2011 - 09:46 AM

Yeah, i had my new PC assembled one day before the news about the Intel chip problem. Didn't care.. Just plugged main SSD into Sata3.0. I expect no problems.

2500K @ 4.3ghz And system is still cool and very quiet. \o/

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#48 Posted 16 February 2011 - 02:42 PM

Yeah. I just didn't order fast enough.

TerminX

el fundador

#49 Posted 16 February 2011 - 02:48 PM

Jeff, on Feb 16 2011, 01:36 AM, said:

Nah. It affects 100% of the boards, including yours. Don't use the SATA 3G ports, only the SATA 6G ports.

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#50 Posted 16 February 2011 - 03:36 PM

It's not just a slowdown either. It potentially causes data corruption.

Also, are they the ESata ports? Or the internal ones?

Jeff

#51 Posted 16 February 2011 - 07:48 PM

TX, on Feb 16 2011, 03:48 PM, said:

Nah. It affects 100% of the boards, including yours. Don't use the SATA 3G ports, only the SATA 6G ports.

I bought a 2 year extended warranty on my system, so I'll be sure to take it in if anything happens.

MusicallyInspired

The Sarien Encounter

#52 Posted 16 February 2011 - 10:18 PM

On the whole system or just the mobo? If just the mobo it won't cover data loss/corruption on your hard drive. Either way wouldn't you rather just not have any data corruption at all? I'd just go the safer way and just use the SATA 6G ports. They're right there.

This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 16 February 2011 - 10:18 PM

Jeff

#53 Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:03 AM

I also bought a SATA RAID card with 6 ports on it.

X-Vector

#54 Posted 17 February 2011 - 05:41 AM

Jeff, I understand you have a Sandy Bridge + GTX570 combo.
I've been undecided between that card and the HD6970 for a while now and at the moment it's coming down to noise levels and compatibility with older games.
According to the Overclock3D review the HD6970 is noticeably less quiet, which is a definite minus.
My main concern is backward compatibility though, do you have any experience with running games from the 1997-2007 era on the GTX570?
Supposedly Nvidia had worse compatibility earlier on with pre-DX10 titles (such as Thief and System Shock 2), but I haven't been able to determine if this is still the case.

Person of Color

Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#55 Posted 17 February 2011 - 10:45 AM

I have problems all the time. I own a 2GB GTX 460, which are architecturally very similar to the newer cards, much, much more so than the 470/480. The newer 570/580 are just a 460 GF104 core with minor revisions, more CUDA cores, and less performance enhancements for CUDA. The 560 is a GF104 with all the cores enabled, the 460 has 1 cluster disabled to improve yields.

I have all kinds of issues. I have to use a third party Direct3D9 renderer for Unreal Tournament, and I have smooth scrolling problems with Kega Fusion. FreeSpace 2 Open is a mess at times, certain lighting causes killer framerate drops, and in nebular battles I have framerate drops and micro stuttering when around capital ships. Even Source games have serious micro stuttering with HDR enabled, and minor stuttering with it off. The guns in source games also don't move smoothly from side to side as you walk, they pop and judder. EDGE (Enhanced Doom Gaming Engine) and QuakeLive are the only "old-school" products that seem to work. Haven't tested Duke yet on this guy.

I have had these problems with three different driver builds. nVidia doesn't want to fix them.

My next system will use ATi if nVidia doesn't get their shit together in a couple years.

This post has been edited by Descent: 17 February 2011 - 10:48 AM

Jeff

#56 Posted 17 February 2011 - 01:23 PM

I have noticed some stuttering with my games. Only one that runs great is FSX, but that's because most of the work is done by the CPU. That i7 2600K is quite an improvement over my Q9550. All the GTX 570 does is handle the anti-aliasing, supersampling/multisampling, as well as water shader effects.

I'll have to try out something like UT2004. I was noticing some stuttering with TF2, but for me Source games have been known to have some kind of stuttering. Even with my GTX 280.

This post has been edited by Jeff: 17 February 2011 - 01:27 PM

Golden Diva

#57 Posted 18 February 2011 - 04:45 AM

Descent, on Feb 17 2011, 11:45 AM, said:

That's what some people thought... four months ago.

The GTX 570 / 580 are equipped with a GF110, which is nothing but a revision of the GF100 that you find in the GTX 465 / 470 / 480. However, the GF100 used in these cards was castrated, even for the high-end product (15/16 clusters enabled on the GTX 480), while the GF110 used in the GTX 580 is complete.
The only differences between the chips themselves is that the revision allowed nVIDIA to enable all the clusters and slightly increase the clocks without increasing power consumption.
Besides that, the GF110 is way much closer from the GF100 than from the GF104 / GF114.

Person of Color

Senior Unpaid Intern at Viceland

#58 Posted 28 February 2011 - 09:39 AM

Thanks for clarifying that. As to why they'd design it around an inferior standard is beyond me.

Golden Diva

#59 Posted 01 March 2011 - 02:25 AM

Descent, on Feb 28 2011, 09:39 AM, said:

Thanks for clarifying that. As to why they'd design it around an inferior standard is beyond me.

From an economical point of view it seems logical: it would have been much more expensive to redesign a whole new chip with 512 SP's, 64 TMU's and 48 ROP's based on the GF114 than only fixing the main flaws of the GF100.
The design itself is not really inferior, it's just different. GF100 and GF110 are handicaped with some features nearly useless for gamers (but useful for e.g. GPGPU), while GF104 and GF114 are designed in a more elegant way with only gaming in mind as nVIDIA got rid of those "useless" features. However GF100 and GF110 are superior in some sense since they have more geometric power which can prove useful when high levels of tesselation are used for example.
You can observe this when comparing GTX 460 (GF104) and GTX 465 (GF100). The GTX 460 delivers better efficiency in most situations while having lower heat and power consumption due to its refined design, but in some rare situations the GTX 465 is faster when enabling DX11 and tesselation (if I remember correctly it happens under Battleforge for example).