Desktop Computers

Cathan_sl said:

Is Raid 0 with SSDs around 256 gb worth doing for the performance or is it negligible?

Click to expand...

I'd say if you already own the ssds do it, but I wouldn't buy two ssds just to raid 0 them

Mist_sl said:

m.2 SSDs RAID shockingly well.

Triple M.2 Samsung 950 Pro Z170 PCIe NVMe RAID Tested - Why So Snappy? | PC Perspective

Click to expand...

NVMe M2 drives sure, Sata M2 drives not so much (probably worth going single PCIe NVMe drive instead).

How important is it to get a monitor with gsync? I was just gonna get a 144hz 24 inch Asus monitor that may or may not have gsync, I can't remember, but will it actually matter?

Gsync is really only important if your framerate is gonna dip below 60 pretty often it feels like. I've got a gsync monitor and it seems no different at all than using my old 144hz monitor, but again I don't play anything right now that would ever dip below 60fps anyway.

Unless you want to spring for a 1440p/144hz display then I wouldn't worry about gsync for now, especially considering how cheap the regular 1080p/144 displays have gotten.

Werd that's what I was gonna do. Seeing as I'm getting a 1070 it might be a moot point anyways

lanx_sl said:

ssd raid is horrible, any raid is horrible,i've done raid0 for the better part of 15yrs on/off since they had that ide to raid0 card in the 2000s w/ a simple transiter hack. loading up drivers and all is too annoying, my last array is 2, 30gb ssds vertex2's. Sure they still work and are in my HTPC, but i only did RIAD0 w/ em cuz at the time you couldn't get any larger HD, but is a PITA. From what i've seen modern SSDs on SATA3, you see nothing in terms of gains if you raid em.

Click to expand...

LOL. False, you get near double the performance.

But right now you should just go this anyway.SAMSUNG 950 PRO M.2 512GB PCI-Express 3.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive MZ-V5P512BW - Newegg.com

Where is the best place to buy a Windows 7 key right now?

I used to use /r/softwareswap but I guess MS threatened legal action.

I didn't really want to pay the $100 or whatever for the retail verison, but if I have to I will.

Still keys for sale all over the /r/softwareshop. Bought one from there not long ago.

I did too, but it is now closed:https://www.reddit.com/r/softwareswap

Nevermind, i found this, hoping it's legit:Marketplace for Microsoft Software

It might even be the place I used before..

Ronne_sl said:

Gsync is really only important if your framerate is gonna dip below 60 pretty often it feels like. I've got a gsync monitor and it seems no different at all than using my old 144hz monitor, but again I don't play anything right now that would ever dip below 60fps anyway.

Unless you want to spring for a 1440p/144hz display then I wouldn't worry about gsync for now, especially considering how cheap the regular 1080p/144 displays have gotten.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is wrong. G-Sync is absolutely worth the extra money if you can afford it. I would 100% recommend it. I don't think I can explain it better than this:

If you think that high framerates replace the need for G-Sync, you don't understand how G-Sync works. The only time that a standard 144Hz display is as smooth as G-Sync is when you have V-Sync enabled, your framerate is constant, and a divisor of the refresh rate. This means that your framerate must be 144, 72, or 48 FPS. (144/1, 144/2, 144/3).

If it fluctuates at all, or even if it is consistently something like 130 FPS with V-Sync off, or Triple Buffering enabled, it will not appear smooth.

G-Sync will have smooth gameplay across the entire 48-144 FPS range.

45-50 FPS is about the lower threshold for most people before they stop perceiving motion as being completely fluid. So while G-Sync does still improve the display of lower framerates, the experience is best above 50 FPS. Some people don't seem to understand this, and think that they can suddenly play games in the low 30's and it will feel like they're playing at 60+.

G-Sync is a solution for variable framerates, not low framerates.

Click to expand...

Noodleface_sl said:

Nevermind, i found this, hoping it's legit:Marketplace for Microsoft Software

Click to expand...

It is legit, I use it often.

I have both a gsync and a freesync 1440p/144hz and you literally cannot tell a difference between the two (freesync isn't enabled on the 2nd monitor) unless you tank your framerate way down in to the 30s. I'm sure gsync doessomethingin the 100+ range but you'll never see it.

You literally should probably check again because there are countless videos out there demonstrating exactly what you're saying and it is real. I don't know what machine you have but here is a guy demonstrating the difference in how buttery G-Sync is compared to No G-Sync using a Titan X / 4770k.

Metro: LL GSYNC vs VSync - YouTube
BF4 No Sync Tearing/GSYNC No Tearing video - YouTube
BF4 GSync No Stutter - YouTube

Is the difference less at 100+? Sure but you still have screen tearing/some stuttering/not as smooth. The difference isn't negligible and when it G-Sync came out it was the biggest jump in real game-play "smoothness" in a while. It is worth the extra money if you can afford it and want a smoother game play experience in general, unequivocally. It is much more noticeable in person than it is in these videos.

But whatever, do what you want. I suppose if you're looking at cheap 1080p/common pleb/144hz monitors then you're not interested in getting a great gaming monitor anyways.

depends on the games you play. If all you play is old stuff like CS:GO and D3 then really gSync isn't gonna do much, you can easily hit 60 or 100 or 144 fps on those games with any reasonable GPU so you can just FPS cap @ 144 and turn gsync and vsync off.

If you keep playing new games though then gSync is great, as your GPU starts falling behind new games gSync will let you keep a tear-free, stutter-free, low input lag gaming experience while you decide when to jump GPUs. My 970 plays stuff like Hitman or GTA5 at decent FPS but its not always 60 FPS, so having gSync helps out a lot when it dips to 40-50 to keep it nearly the same experience as 60 fps without having the extra input lag of vSync.

its also nice with FPS like overwatch or doom when those games are always 60 fps and you can run vsync and triple buffer off to keep input lag as low as possible and not have any tearing

I do think people overhype gSync a bit, its nice but honestly most of the time I really don't notice at all, vSync On was fine in most SP games since who cares if your input is an extra 15 ms. Its nice though and I don't really any reason why you'd actively avoid it

I've decided that debating the virtues of G-sync from an objective viewpoint is futile: some people simply don't give a shit or even notice screen tearing. I absolutely can't stand screen-tearing or low FPS, but I've got friends who literally do not even notice. I'll be watching them play and freaking out and they won't have a gdamn idea what I'm talking about, even when I point it out to them. Constant tearing + huge swings from 80 to 20fps and back and they don't even notice.

For people like that, a nice IPS panel is probably their best bet.Everyonenotices the difference between IPS and TN.

Heh, they are both IPS too!

Maybe it is just what I play? I'm on a 6700k/980ti currently and probably the most taxing game I've played lately is The Division, though I don't actually recall if I tried that on the 2nd monitor or not? Maybe I'm just too much of a stickler for 60+fps and need to be running shit on higher settings/lower framerate to really see the difference gsync makes, but it's been hardly noticeable for me.

I just wish a 27"+ 4K IPS 144Hz G-Sync monitor would get released. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Probably won't be coming out any time soon though. Womp womp.

Think 4k will be doable even with the new nvidia cards? All their presentation bluster sounds amazing, but there's no benchmarks yet and it'd have to be a truly herculean leap forward to be able to run AAA titles at 4k and 60fps reliably.

Ronne_sl said:

Think 4k will be doable even with the new nvidia cards? All their presentation bluster sounds amazing, but there's no benchmarks yet and it'd have to be a truly herculean leap forward to be able to run AAA titles at 4k and 60fps reliably.

Click to expand...

I still don't think these new cards can carry 4k @ 60fps. I believe the big pascal might though. It is shaping up to be a beast.