|
The Lord Bude posted:yup. 9800GX2s. Both of them are still going strong in different friend's PCs. When the motherboard died the rest of the PC got divvied up between about 4 people. Only SLI issue I ever had was having to disable QuadSLi to play WoW, but my fps never dropped into double digits playing that game anyhow. I used to run Folding@home on two 9800gx2s. We didn't need much extra heating that winter!
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
I was thinking of getting Shadow of Mordor. The listed minimum required CPU for the game is an Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz. I have an i7-3630qm clocked at 2.4ghz. Would my processor be able to handle the game due to having extra cores or whatever, or is the game too much? I'm pretty out of touch with the whole specifics regarding processors, and I don't quite understand the difference between quad core/dual core etc., apologies if this is a stupid question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Eau de MacGowan posted:I was thinking of getting Shadow of Mordor. The listed minimum required CPU for the game is an Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz. I have an i7-3630qm clocked at 2.4ghz. Would my processor be able to handle the game due to having extra cores or whatever, or is the game too much? I'm pretty out of touch with the whole specifics regarding processors, and I don't quite understand the difference between quad core/dual core etc., apologies if this is a stupid question. You should be perfectly fine. http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-3630QM-vs-Intel-Core-i5-750
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Phantom Limb posted:You should be perfectly fine. Thanks a lot for the quick reply - that's a real useful comparison site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
So I had a conversation with the IT guy at my office who buys only AMD processors and he seemed receptive to the idea that Intel might be better for our totally single threaded workloads, but still maintained that going AMD saves us money on RAM because Intel processors require you to use 3 sticks instead of two. I can't find anything to back up that claim, however. I also learned he just bought 3 new top-tier AMD processors to upgrade some of our machines and apparently we will be water cooling them because they run so hot  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Intel hasn't used tri-channel RAM since loving 2009. He should be fired since he obviously can't stay within 5 years of current best practices for large capital expenses. Edit: plus the boards never actually required tri-channel, it just gave a performance boost for memory-bound applications on the i7-9xx chips Phantom Limb fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
he is completely loving wrong about literally everything
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Tacier posted:So I had a conversation with the IT guy at my office who buys only AMD processors and he seemed receptive to the idea that Intel might be better for our totally single threaded workloads, but still maintained that going AMD saves us money on RAM because Intel processors require you to use 3 sticks instead of two. I can't find anything to back up that claim, however. He's wasting money for lower performance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Tacier posted:So I had a conversation with the IT guy at my office who buys only AMD processors and he seemed receptive to the idea that Intel might be better for our totally single threaded workloads, but still maintained that going AMD saves us money on RAM because Intel processors require you to use 3 sticks instead of two. I can't find anything to back up that claim, however. You can use http://ark.intel.com/ to prove him wrong, find whatever cpu you want and search the page for "channel"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Any chance of budgeting in a one off machine just to explore alternatives or something? It doesn't seem like he'll be convinced without a machine right in front of him kicking rear end in your tasks with proof of an equal or lesser price tag (not even factoring in time saved by a faster machine). Might as well get a Kill a Watt to show power savings as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Tacier posted:So I had a conversation with the IT guy at my office who buys only AMD processors and he seemed receptive to the idea that Intel might be better for our totally single threaded workloads, but still maintained that going AMD saves us money on RAM because Intel processors require you to use 3 sticks instead of two. I can't find anything to back up that claim, however. I remember you posted about this guy a few pages back. If this is the truth then did you ever talk to your boss about this? If you haven't done so, then why not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Titor posted:I remember you posted about this guy a few pages back. If this is the truth then did you ever talk to your boss about this? If you haven't done so, then why not? I really didn't think he'd be buying any new stuff for a while or I would have spoken to him sooner, but I wanted talk to him first about it before going to our boss, particularly because the bosses will be more inclined to believe the IT guy than me, which is why I was soliciting links for unambiguous benchmarks to make my case with in my first post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
japtor posted:Any chance of budgeting in a one off machine just to explore alternatives or something? It doesn't seem like he'll be convinced without a machine right in front of him kicking rear end in your tasks with proof of an equal or lesser price tag (not even factoring in time saved by a faster machine). Might as well get a Kill a Watt to show power savings as well. That's a good idea. We actually don't pay for our electricity, but a one-off build comparison running an 8 hour process would decisively end any debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
Tacier posted:I really didn't think he'd be buying any new stuff for a while or I would have spoken to him sooner, but I wanted talk to him first about it before going to our boss, particularly because the bosses will be more inclined to believe the IT guy than me, which is why I was soliciting links for unambiguous benchmarks to make my case with in my first post. You already spoke to him about it yet he hasn't been convinced. To add onto that he has made yet another terrible decision for the company. I'm sure your boss would actually prefer to be directly informed about this instead of remaining oblivious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Don't do it, think of the IT guy's poor family and children!  but yeah this guy's so delusional it'd be easier to get him fired than to change his mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
That guy is the IT equivalent of a climate change denier. Pretty much the only reason to believe it at this point is due to religious reasons keeping you from questioning it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Man, I remember buying triple channel back in the day thinking it would be the way forwards. Ultimately it just succeeded in limiting my upgrade choices and making me dubious that Quad-Channel will play out any differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
So apparently while the onboard graphics of Z97 are HDCP compliant, they don't do mpeg4 decoding.... yay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Ika posted:So apparently while the onboard graphics of Z97 are HDCP compliant, they don't do mpeg4 decoding.... yay. Z97 has no onboard graphics. The graphics are handled by the cpu, and intel cpu's do have mpeg4 decoding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Ika posted:So apparently while the onboard graphics of Z97 are HDCP compliant, they don't do mpeg4 decoding.... yay. Yes it does? What's the source?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Yes it does? What's the source? Found it here while trying to find out why my blurays won't display via the integrated ports. Powerdvd diagnostics also say hardware decoding isn't working on just the monitor connected to the integrated ports. E: And just to be clear, once I plug my second monitor directly into my discrete GPU it works fine, so it doesn't seem to be the cable. Ika fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
don't get a guy fired for being mistaken about whether AMD beats Intel, talk to him and change his mind 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Ika posted:Found it here while trying to find out why my blurays won't display via the integrated ports. Powerdvd diagnostics also say hardware decoding isn't working on just the monitor connected to the integrated ports. I have a Pentium G3258 in a MSI Z97 board and WMC on Win7 works great, even on the premium cable channels. Something else is going on here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
There's an Intel response saying it's a known issue, though, in a similar post I Googled. So HD Graphics definitely does accelerate h.264 decoding, and that implies MPEG4, because h.264 is MPEG4 Part 10 AVC. I can play Blu-rays fine on my HD Graphics parts (two PCs with HD 3000 Gen6 and one tablet with HD Graphics Gen 7 Ivy/Haswell-era), and they play my old WMC recordings fine, too (though not the premium channel ones - that PC's playback credentials got horked). I guess we gotta bona fide mystery on our hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
I'm just as surprised as you guys, I expected it to work. I'm using the newest drivers off the intel site. If I switch the monitor on the onboard to primary I can't even play blurays on either monitor. Its entirely possible that powerDVD just is coded absolutely horribly and is messing up the detection somewhere, considering how many other things it does badly. (Such as only adjusting global volume level instead of managing an internal volume level.) The compatibility tool still lists my radeon card even when its no longer primary, but then goes on to claim no hardware acceleration is available for decoding. However I refuse to pay for a newer bluray player software just because of DRM and the companies not being bothered to keep their older versions working with current discs. I also am not sure how to check if its the player software or a driver issue. Ika fucked around with this message at 12:28 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
Ika posted:I'm just as surprised as you guys, I expected it to work. I'm using the newest drivers off the intel site. If I switch the monitor on the onboard to primary I can't even play blurays on either monitor. I gave up on PowerDVD years ago when they started trying to cram as much bloatware into it as they possibly could, to the point when it became more advertising service than player software. Arcsoft Totalmedia theatre is much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I gave up on PowerDVD years ago when they started trying to cram as much bloatware into it as they possibly could, to the point when it became more advertising service than player software. Arcsoft Totalmedia theatre is much better. I got an OEM version with my drive which is the only reason I use it. Upgrading that costs more than a new bluray drive. I really should just get the AACS passthrough working with VLC but I've been too lazy to compile it myself and don't trust the precompiled binaries off of random sites. But that's getting off topic. E: vvvvvvv that explains why I couldn't even figure out how much that would cost. Ika fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Arcsoft dropped support for TotalMedia Theatre. It's now abandonware.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Ika posted:I also am not sure how to check if its the player software or a driver issue. Open an h.264 video file in MPC-HC. Right-click the video frame, go to Filters, and click on MPC Video Decoder. It should show some sort of DXVA in use. That's the video hardware decoding.  In MPC's Options -> Internal Filters, all the DXVA filters should be enabled there td4guy fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Arcsoft dropped support for TotalMedia Theatre. It's now abandonware. Wait what? when did this happen? That sucks, nothing else was as good. Edit: looking at the thread on the Arcsoft forum, this was a really lovely move, they kept advertising it, and promoting upcoming features, then one day it was ditched out of the blue. I feel sorry for anyone who bought it soon before it was abandoned. The Lord Bude fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Almost sounds like licensing issues, but that's just a random guess.td4guy posted:Try another piece of software. I'm only seeing a "LAV Video Decoder" option in the filter list, and can select quicksync, DXVA2, etc there. They all support H264/MPEG2/DVD etc decoding, and none of them support MPEG-4. Playback takes up 1% CPU so something definitely is doing the hardware decoding, but I am not sure which GPU. I had the integrated one as primary while testing. 
Ika fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Wait what? when did this happen? I wouldn't be surprised if they were being railroaded by legal issues from BluRay licensing. The sooner VLC gets full BluRay playback the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:I wouldn't be surprised if they were being railroaded by legal issues from BluRay licensing. Unless they release a separate paid premium version I find it highly unlikely - the licensing costs would be prohibitive I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:Unless they release a separate paid premium version I find it highly unlikely - the licensing costs would be prohibitive I'd imagine. Just like the licensing costs to play DVDs through VLC?  EDIT: Technically VLC can already play back video content on BDs, but no menus yet and it requires that you install something like AnyDVDHD to bypass the copy protection. Menus/BD-J are a work in progress however and I think you can build VLC with incomplete support for it. See here: http://www.jbkempf.com/blog/post/2014/Blu-Ray-libraries-update SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:Just like the licensing costs to play DVDs through VLC? I have a nightly installed from a week or two back, and on most discs the menus work. The official release has a lot more problems with menus. The bluray playback itself works better than with powerDVD, windows doesn't need to disable aero, the volume control doesn't gently caress with the volume of whatever game I am playing, etc. The only downside is creating a 50gb iso first. I know this is sort of :files: but anyone that expects me to spend 50 euros to upgrade my player software after buying a 20 euro movie because it uses a newer encryption key or something and the devs can't be bothered to maintain compatibility can just gently caress off. (So not only will no movies not play on my second monitor, some newer ones won't even play on my main monitor.) Ika fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:it requires that you install something like AnyDVDHD to bypass the copy protection. This is the deal breaker for me. I'm not going to buy software of questionable legality in order to properly use another piece of software, particularly when there are totally unambiguously legal avenues to do something. It pisses me of that Jriver requires this - the thing is great at everything else, I already use it for music, just licence the drat copy protection poo poo and charge me extra if you really want to - Jriver is paid software already. I'm hoping Microsoft adds bluray support to windows media center in windows 10 or something, they might as well since they've already started charging extra for it. Not holding my breath though. I guess there is still WinDVD, but that never did work as well as the other two. Cyberlink it's going to have to be it seems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:This is the deal breaker for me. I'm not going to buy software of questionable legality in order to properly use another piece of software, particularly when there are totally unambiguously legal avenues to do something. It pisses me of that Jriver requires this - the thing is great at everything else, I already use it for music, just licence the drat copy protection poo poo and charge me extra if you really want to - Jriver is paid software already. If you have VLC installed, you're already using software of questionable legality. It bypasses DVD (CSS) encryption. You don't want Jriver to license support for BluRay. They would be forced to cripple their own software, just like what happened with TMT. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
The Lord Bude posted:I'm hoping Microsoft adds bluray support to windows media center in windows 10 or something, they might as well since they've already started charging extra for it. Not holding my breath though. I'm almost completely certain that this won't happen. They are charging extra for it because they don't want to eat the MPEG2 license fee for every install anymore, not because it's a premium product or anything like that. All that changed with MCE from W7 to W8 was that they removed some compatibility features. I expect MCE will be either gone from new versions of Windows within a year or two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Naffer posted:I'm almost completely certain that this won't happen. They are charging extra for it because they don't want to eat the MPEG2 license fee for every install anymore, not because it's a premium product or anything like that. All that changed with MCE from W7 to W8 was that they removed some compatibility features. I expect MCE will be either gone from new versions of Windows within a year or two. WMC is definitely in the windows 10 beta. Hopefully it stays though i doubt it will be improved on 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Computers hardly even have optical drives anymore, so I wouldn't expect better solutions to pop up in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:00
|
|