|
FaustianQ posted:Actually speaking of platform/processor upgrades, I'm currently trying to get a Q9450/HD 6950 to run Overwatch and getting awful frames on medium settings (25-45fps). Which is part is being the worst bottleneck, as chucking the entire system isn't an option. What resolution?
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
Gwaihir posted:What resolution? 1600x900.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
I can just about promise you is the graphics card. AMD isn't updating drivers for anything before GCN, so you're running game developer shader code, not gpu manufacturer optimized shader code. Plus that thing is pretty old. That cpu is old, but the big cache helps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Actually speaking of platform/processor upgrades, I'm currently trying to get a Q9450/HD 6950 to run Overwatch and getting awful frames on medium settings (25-45fps). Which is part is being the worst bottleneck, as chucking the entire system isn't an option. I have a near identical system, my solution is games from 2013 and before. If you grab a graphics card you should be aware that some may not be compatible if you have a BIOS mb which is likely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Actually speaking of platform/processor upgrades, I'm currently trying to get a Q9450/HD 6950 to run Overwatch and getting awful frames on medium settings (25-45fps). Which is part is being the worst bottleneck, as chucking the entire system isn't an option. I'm actually going to weigh in with a contrarian opinion and say it might be your CPU, because I was running a 2500K / HD 5850 until not too long ago and most things were running fine. Looking at the official system specs, your CPU is under minimum requirement and your GPU almost to recommended. Overwatch is a game that really wants single threaded CPU speed. Replacing a CPU / MB / RAM is going to be more expensive though. https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/7636 If you mostly just play games, an i3-6100 is ~$110 and is a 3.7 GHz current-generation dual core. Great for games, pair with a cheap-ish H170 motherboard and 8 or 16GB of DDR4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:I can just about promise you is the graphics card. AMD isn't updating drivers for anything before GCN, so you're running game developer shader code, not gpu manufacturer optimized shader code. Yeah the whole thing is old, but it's cheap and not intended for me. Looking at the absurd prices people are asking for Bonaire/Pitcairn or GK104 and I'm thinking on idling until the RX460 hits, or even the RX470. Seriously, why is the secondary market on 2011-2014 parts so loving ridiculous, there is this weird bell curve of VLIW/Fermi good price/perf ratio (but bad absolute perf), then Maxwell/Grenada for good price/absolute perf, but everything between sucks enormous rear end for price. No, idiot #633 on ebay, your loving 7850 is not worth 160$ because some dipshit is trying to pawn off a broken one for 30$ and no warranty. Twerk from Home posted:I'm actually going to weigh in with a contrarian opinion and say it might be your CPU, because I was running a 2500K / HD 5850 until not too long ago and most things were running fine. Looking at the official system specs, your CPU is under minimum requirement and your GPU almost to recommended. Overwatch is a game that really wants single threaded CPU speed. Replacing a CPU / MB / RAM is going to be more expensive though. Was actually looking at a 8GB DDR3+Mobo+i5 2400 as a solution, asking price is ~160$, not sure if good deal. EmpyreanFlux fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Was actually looking at a 8GB DDR3+Mobo+i5 2400 as a solution, asking price is ~160$, not sure if good deal. Goddamn. People want a fortune for old poo poo. If you have a microcenter near you, an i3-6100+MB+8GB DDR4 would be about the same price new before tax, and the i5-2400 isn't really the one you want. Older i5s like that you really want a -K because they overclock great, stock clocks are low, and they're slower than current stuff per clock. i5-4xxx stuff should be cheap by now, they were introduced 3 years ago!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Has anyone announced any RX480x4GB AIB cards? All of this really strikes me as an amazing "Potemkin Launch" so that they can get people to compare the 1060 to a $200 card that doesn't really exist rather than a $240 one, but if they are actually going to keep producing it beyond a token initial run...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Has anyone announced any RX480x4GB AIB cards? All of this really strikes me as an amazing "Potemkin Launch" so that they can get people to compare the 1060 to a $200 card that doesn't really exist rather than a $240 one, but if they are actually going to keep producing it beyond a token initial run... What I find even stranger is that it's not clear to me if the performance of the RX480 really requires 8GB to be OK? Or is that a bet based on the consoles having 8GB, and it likely being faster than what's going in those, even after refresh?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Has anyone announced any RX480x4GB AIB cards? All of this really strikes me as an amazing "Potemkin Launch" so that they can get people to compare the 1060 to a $200 card that doesn't really exist rather than a $240 one, but if they are actually going to keep producing it beyond a token initial run... A number have been announced but no release dates have been announced at all, which was another reason I went ahead and got mine. Well, technically one has, the xfx, which is the one I bought, but it's just the reference card with a backplate and a factory over clock. Overall I'm happy with it. I'm getting an average fifty fps in total war Warhammer with maxed settings and 2650*1440 resolution. It does run a little hot, up at around 85c, but looking at the aftermarket coolers people are posting installing them seems like more of a headache than its probably worth. I might try just putting some non conductive thermal paste on the backplate screws as I've read that can help.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Goddamn. People want a fortune for old poo poo. If you have a microcenter near you, an i3-6100+MB+8GB DDR4 would be about the same price new before tax, and the i5-2400 isn't really the one you want. Older i5s like that you really want a -K because they overclock great, stock clocks are low, and they're slower than current stuff per clock. i5-4xxx stuff should be cheap by now, they were introduced 3 years ago! I am cursed with living in an area where the closest thing to a tech store is a loving Best Buy (not a repair shop, those are dime a dozen). I'd hassle one of those repair shops for scraps but they want kidneys for anything, so ebay it is basically. Also not sure about an i3, dual core is weak nowadays, hence why I was eyeballing an i5, even a weak 2400 (because ahahaha getting a proper Z77 and 2500K/3570K, might as well buy into Skylake!) And yeah, none of the old Core series seems to be depreciating in value much, you'll still see YE OLDE SOKETTE LGA1366 and accompanying i7s going for nearly what modern i7s and boards are worth. I'm not sure if it's down to rarity or if people have no concept of the actual resale value of what they're trying to sell, or maybe everyone is retarded and people are willingly buying this old poo poo for absurd prices, ala "let me spend as much money on a QX9770 as a new i5".
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Made up my mind to buy a 1080 once I can find one under $650 that isn't a blower and has a backplate. So I guess in September? I'm kind of surprised availability is still this horrible
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Skuto posted:What I find even stranger is that it's not clear to me if the performance of the RX480 really requires 8GB to be OK? Or is that a bet based on the consoles having 8GB, and it likely being faster than what's going in those, even after refresh? More likely they need a certain number of chips for their bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I am cursed with living in an area where the closest thing to a tech store is a loving Best Buy (not a repair shop, those are dime a dozen). I'd hassle one of those repair shops for scraps but they want kidneys for anything, so ebay it is basically. Also not sure about an i3, dual core is weak nowadays, hence why I was eyeballing an i5, even a weak 2400 I would absolutely expect the i3-6100 to do as well or better than an i5-2400. Here it is holding its own against a (stock) 2500K. Admittedly with DDR-2666 which would require a Z170 mobo, but the difference in performance there is probably similar to or smaller than the difference between an i5-2400 and stock i5-2500K. HMS Boromir fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:And yeah, none of the old Core series seems to be depreciating in value much, you'll still see YE OLDE SOKETTE LGA1366 and accompanying i7s going for nearly what modern i7s and boards are worth. That's even more ridiculous, Socket 1366 Xeons are a dime a dozen - I bought a six-core, 3.16ghz one off Fleabay for like $60.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Goddamn. People want a fortune for old poo poo. If you have a microcenter near you, an i3-6100+MB+8GB DDR4 would be about the same price new before tax, and the i5-2400 isn't really the one you want. Older i5s like that you really want a -K because they overclock great, stock clocks are low, and they're slower than current stuff per clock. i5-4xxx stuff should be cheap by now, they were introduced 3 years ago! Key word - *should* - because really, in the last 3 years, who's been able to compete with Intel? Demand is gonna be high when AMD can't come close to their performance and have all sorts of power/heat problems on top of it. Basically there's nobody around that can beat Intel's price or performance, so anything they put out regardless of age will come at a premium when people are willing to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Hubis posted:Has anyone announced any RX480x4GB AIB cards? All of this really strikes me as an amazing "Potemkin Launch" so that they can get people to compare the 1060 to a $200 card that doesn't really exist rather than a $240 one, but if they are actually going to keep producing it beyond a token initial run... Looks like that's pure vaporware, probably because the pure AMD AIBs are going to need all the margins they can get away with on the 8GB version to compensate for AMD's low GPU marketshare, while everyone else dual-sourcing from Nvidia and AMD will undoubtedly put the 1060 well ahead of the 480 in production priority. Besides, who are we kidding with the AMD is cheaper meme when the 480 8GB AIBs are going to sell at a premium above the $240 reference model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:More likely they need a certain number of chips for their bandwidth. I thought the difference was that the 4GB version had (in theory) lower memory clocks, which of course affects bandwidth. But nothing asides from that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A number have been announced but no release dates have been announced at all, which was another reason I went ahead and got mine. Well, technically one has, the xfx, which is the one I bought, but it's just the reference card with a backplate and a factory over clock. We're thermal pasting screws now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:More likely they need a certain number of chips for their bandwidth. Again, if they expected the RX480 to have a higher base clock, it might make sense to have a higher B/W model. With the lower actual clocks the compute throughput may just not be able to fully utilize the extra capacity. Or maybe they planned to only do an 8GB card all along, and yields were bad enough that they realized they couldn't see a profit selling that at $200 so they split the production and marked it up? Or maybe the "4GB" cards are binned somehow? I'd be fascinated to see a headroom/power/undervolting comparison between an 8GB and "upgraded" 4GB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Palladium posted:Looks like that's pure vaporware, probably because the pure AMD AIBs are going to need all the margins they can get away with on the 8GB version to compensate for AMD's low GPU marketshare, while everyone else dual-sourcing from Nvidia and AMD will undoubtedly put the 1060 well ahead of the 480 in production priority. Hey man, I read on r/AMD that the 480 is a no-brainer over the 1060 because it has 8GB vs 6GB, which makes it "more futureproof". It's all about maximizing your GB/$
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Key word - *should* - because really, in the last 3 years, who's been able to compete with Intel? Demand is gonna be high when AMD can't come close to their performance and have all sorts of power/heat problems on top of it. Basically there's nobody around that can beat Intel's price or performance, so anything they put out regardless of age will come at a premium when people are willing to pay. I was going to post that if you're budget limited enough that you're looking at dual core Intels, then something like the Athlon X4 series might be worth a look as you're going to be saving additional money on the mainboard. But the 2M/4C design loses to dual-core no-HT Intels in most gaming benchmarks I looked at. Ironically guru3d just posted a review of the X4 845, comparing it to high end Intels - which makes no sense whatsoever - but it does illustrate nicely how the CPU can hold back a GTX 1080.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Actually speaking of platform/processor upgrades, I'm currently trying to get a Q9450/HD 6950 to run Overwatch and getting awful frames on medium settings (25-45fps). Which is part is being the worst bottleneck, as chucking the entire system isn't an option. I'm hovering between 60-70 with 6850 and 4690K, if that helps. I might have some cap at 70 since it doesn't go higher at any point, but anyways. Medium settings as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:We're thermal pasting screws now? Hey, it's a crazy idea but it just might work! But yeah one reason I posted it was to see how crazy it sounded. I mean, I have extra paste anyways, so I don't see a downside, but maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
FWIW my 4870x2 *idled* at 90 degrees for like 5-6 years in various computers and would probably still work if it didn't get rained on one day 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I'm actually going to weigh in with a contrarian opinion and say it might be your CPU, because I was running a 2500K / HD 5850 until not too long ago and most things were running fine. Looking at the official system specs, your CPU is under minimum requirement and your GPU almost to recommended. Overwatch is a game that really wants single threaded CPU speed. Replacing a CPU / MB / RAM is going to be more expensive though. A 6950 is not "almost the same as" a 7950, they're entirely different generations of chips on totally different processor architectures. 6950 is TeraScale 3, 7950 is GCN 1.0. AMD is actually still selling GCN 1.0 chips, which is pretty funny because that architecture is north of 4 years old at this point. Also, you really want at least a quadcore for gaming, if you can afford it. I tried to use that chip's Haswell predecessor (the 4170) for a while and it was pretty rough in some games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Ffs I dont even want the 480 because its just not the performance level I want or ever will want anymore probably, but I was very pleased at the price point so it was an immediately interesting card. And I think most of us were at one point or another a $200 card max person, and I'd wager to guess most people will always be because most people dont give a crap enough to spend a shitload of money on video games. Its a very important price for a GPU and I know I don't have to tell anybody that. Well... then the somewhat morbid details came out (and not even talking about mb power draw) - but ok, its $200, maybe a $220-$230 AIB will function adequately since at the end of the day its "just a thermal problem, if anything at all". So wtf? How are there are not at least little teaser pages out on day one? And for the one that seems to exists, where the hell is it? I will whine and bitch all day about price gouging and supply problems nvidia cards are experiencing but at least they EXIST and some people can buy them, because, you know, they are being manufactured. Where are the MSI variants? ASUS? Gigabyte? gently caress gigabyte always slaps poo poo on everything, yet they already released the 1060 that presumably is already being made and there isn't even a press release about a 480 of theirs. The 4gb/8gb thing was one of my sticking points with the 480 initially due to the potential artificial speed limiting, but if they seriously don't even make 4gb cards them that's literally worse than the FE fiasco in terms of fake price marketing - if they simply get phased out entirely. At least MSRP pascal cards are going to exist eventually, it's already within $20 on both cards (kinda sorta maybe yeah sure but its at least feasible). I'll wait for actual proof. Have there been any truly 4gb cards with 4gb of physical ram on them? If the 4gb cards are just a marketing stunt its pretty clear that a $270 AIB 480 is not going to loving fly. And it happened again. I got caught up in the 480 tornado and forgot why I used to be very disappointed in AMD. This was the first "oh cool heck yeah something new!" video card AMD has released in years. YEARS. And yes I ignore the Fury, even if that's not technically fair, but as far as I'm concerned that was just a failure which I can't decide if that's worse or not. Where are the cards AMD? Why weren't at least incremental architectural improvements released in the ridiculous massive gulf of time since the last card you made? Why did you rebrand the same cards with a 3 on the box and essentially tell us to suck it and then, apparently, we did jaws locked open? How could nvidia beat you to a real actual full lineup style card release with actual improvements twice? Things have gotten so stretched out that some users are so new to the GPU world that they dont even know thats not how its always been. Well, there's my rant, not much is new I guess. Suppose I'll continue buying nvidia cards despite my deep disappointment with their marketing until AMD decides to give a gently caress, and ill continue being branded as a fanboy for being mad about lovely things AMD does or doesn't do anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Wait when I built my PC May last year I got a 4790K as I didn't know how long Skylake would be, bit silly since my 2500K could have lasted a bit more but did I make a real dumb move? Also my Gainward 1080 GLH is pretty sweet and fast and quiet. Got it for £580 or so too before it got jacked up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Depends on how much you sold that 2500k for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:42
|
|
Blackfyre posted:Wait when I built my PC May last year I got a 4790K as I didn't know how long Skylake would be, bit silly since my 2500K could have lasted a bit more but did I make a real dumb move? I don't see how a 4790k is a bad move, it's a great CPU, it just runs pretty hot, you could have maybe gained 5% higher IPC, a couple hundred MHz more clock speed on a 6700k when OCed and needed less cooling to do so but the difference is pretty minor. Also a 4790k is quite an upgrade over a 2500k, especially in badly optimized or CPU heavy games, it's also pretty future proof in case games start really making use of more than four threads in DX12/Vulkan.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
BOOTY-ADE posted:Key word - *should* - because really, in the last 3 years, who's been able to compete with Intel? Demand is gonna be high when AMD can't come close to their performance and have all sorts of power/heat problems on top of it. Basically there's nobody around that can beat Intel's price or performance, so anything they put out regardless of age will come at a premium when people are willing to pay. The other issue is that older processors are no longer really obsolete. I've been using a Q6600 system until a couple of months ago (when I upgraded to a i5-2500 lol) and it was running everything perfectly fine, including most modern games. It is actually significantly slower by all metrics, but in practice it's not an issue in 90% of use cases. So if in practice it's 90% as good as a modern CPU, there's little reason for it to depreciate. It would've been unthinkable to use a 486 for mainstream games and apps when P3 was already out, but not any more! This doesn't seem to be happening yet to the same degree with GPUs yet, but there are some signs I think - the 9xx series don't seem to lose as much now as I expected, for example, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
E: I'm dumb and linked to the wrong video
Hubis fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:This doesn't seem to be happening yet to the same degree with GPUs yet, but there are some signs I think - the 9xx series don't seem to lose as much now as I expected, for example, but we'll see. The whole "NVIDIA cripples old GPUs" meme was vastly overblown. Kepler didn't actually get slower, Maxwell and GCN got faster (with improved drivers), and games started using tessellation more heavily which Maxwell significantly improved on. People then start falling back to "well maybe they're not optimizing Kepler as well as they could be" and there's no evidence, that's just people imputing conspiracies because they dislike NVIDIA. Kepler actually still rocks pretty hard if you disable the features that overuse tessellation and stay under your VRAM limit. It's a GCN 1.0 competitor and it's fine in that context. NVIDIA also started putting decent amounts of VRAM on Maxwell cards (with a few notable low-end exceptions like the 960). Also, Pascal is basically die-shrunk Maxwell. It's not entirely the same, there are some feature improvements and like most die-shrinks it's got faster clocks and lower power consumption, but basically it's Super Maxwell, and optimizations that work for Pascal will largely work for Maxwell. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
I just meant that they're not losing as much value aka depreciating now, not that there is some kind of conspiracy to cripple old cards to force upgrades on people 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Sayara posted:I'm hovering between 60-70 with 6850 and 4690K, if that helps. Yeah, definitely sounds like a processor limitation now. 7850 w/ PII 955 on medium hits well above 70fps. Now, the trick, go super cheap with a Xeon X5460/70 or jump to Sandy quad. JnnyThndrs posted:That's even more ridiculous, Socket 1366 Xeons are a dime a dozen - I bought a six-core, 3.16ghz one off Fleabay for like $60. Even the 1366 Xeons hover around ~100$, X5675 for instance is 90$ and up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I just meant that they're not losing as much value aka depreciating now, not that there is some kind of conspiracy to cripple old cards to force upgrades on people Yeah, NOS/clearance cards are actually cheaper than used ones right now. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Yeah, definitely sounds like a processor limitation now. 7850 w/ PII 955 on medium hits well above 70fps. http://www.ebay.com/itm/SR0KX-INTEL...wIAAOSwKfVXGULm  Good luck finding an LGA2011 motherboard for cheap, but you could have a dual-socket 16-core setup for not much more than those yahoos around you want for 5 year old sandy bridge poo poo. Edit: Why on earth are 4 year old server CPUs with an original MSRP of $2000 available for $60, but people want ~$150 for even older desktop CPUs that sold for $200 new? Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Yeah, definitely sounds like a processor limitation now. 7850 w/ PII 955 on medium hits well above 70fps. I'll chime in as well - i5-760 & 6870 and I'm getting 20-40 fps as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Truga posted:*idled* at 90 degrees 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
THE DOG HOUSE posted:And it happened again. I got caught up in the 480 tornado and forgot why I used to be very disappointed in AMD. This was the first "oh cool heck yeah something new!" video card AMD has released in years. YEARS. And yes I ignore the Fury, even if that's not technically fair, but as far as I'm concerned that was just a failure which I can't decide if that's worse or not. Where are the cards AMD? Why weren't at least incremental architectural improvements released in the ridiculous massive gulf of time since the last card you made? Why did you rebrand the same cards with a 3 on the box and essentially tell us to suck it and then, apparently, we did jaws locked open? How could nvidia beat you to a real actual full lineup style card release with actual improvements twice? Things have gotten so stretched out that some users are so new to the GPU world that they dont even know thats not how its always been. I've said it before, but AMD has released exactly five chips across all market segments since GCN 1.0 in 2012. Bonaire, Hawaii, Tonga, Fiji, and now Polaris 10. They are still actively marketing those ancient GCN 1.0 chips - the 370 is a Pitcairn and Tahiti was only eliminated in the last round. Their rate of product development has been absolutely abysmal. They're circling the drain and I can't imagine them lasting more than another couple years unless they manage to strike it big with one of the Vega chips. They need GloFo to fix their node yesterday and start cranking out products. NVIDIA is cranking up production pretty good at this point - 1070s are readily available and it's not even hard to get a 1080 anymore (albeit they're mostly FEs). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:05
|
|