Necrath Evilcraft
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 576
- 146
Desktop Computers
- Thread starter brekk
- Start date
What are your guy's feelings on IPS vs higher response/hz times of the TN monitors these days?
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 23,692
- 34,420
I dunno, maybe I'm just getting old but I prefer the viewing angles and color definition on the S-IPS. Honestly 5ms response time is way better than all my old crap anyway, the only questionable thing is refresh rate. I guess it depends what you're normally playing and how good your hardware is.
That's the feeling I'm getting. I'm not a competitive gamer, and enjoy the "pretty-ness" of games these days. I'd likely be running that build Joeboo listed earlier, with a minor change of upgrading the graphics card to the Geforce GTX 970. I guess a better question would be if it's worth springing for a 1440p monitor. I'm assuming that the rig could handle 60 fps on the majority of items out there now. Anyone rocking the GTX 970 have experience with 1440p?
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Newer games do well at 1440p on a 970, I have a EVGA 970 and a Qnix 1440p monitor that overclocks to 96hz.
Shadows of Mordor averaged around 70FPS, Battlefield 4 averages around 50FPS, Far Cry 4 was right around 50FPS, etc.
Pretty much all of them almost never dropped below 30fps, but would spend a LOT of time under 60FPS, so if someone wants a silky-smooth 60FPS with max settings in new games, a 970 can't quite pull it off, but it'll put you closer to 60 than 30 in every game. I 970 will keep damn near any game over 60FPS at 1080p though, it shreds games at 1080p, basically increase all of those frame rates I listed by 50%, and thats the 1080p performance.
Shadows of Mordor averaged around 70FPS, Battlefield 4 averages around 50FPS, Far Cry 4 was right around 50FPS, etc.
Pretty much all of them almost never dropped below 30fps, but would spend a LOT of time under 60FPS, so if someone wants a silky-smooth 60FPS with max settings in new games, a 970 can't quite pull it off, but it'll put you closer to 60 than 30 in every game. I 970 will keep damn near any game over 60FPS at 1080p though, it shreds games at 1080p, basically increase all of those frame rates I listed by 50%, and thats the 1080p performance.
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Interesting numbers. They have a 970 equivalent to the original Titan.
Titan release dates have been
Original Titan = Feb 2013
Titan Black = Feb 2014
Titan X = March 2015
They release one every year like clockwork. First two were $1000 cards, 3rd one is expected to be $1500+. So from Feb 2013(original Titan) to September 2014(release of 970) that same performance dropped from $1000 to $300
Titan Black was a bit of a waste of a card, it really wasn't much of an improvement over the original Titan. Titan X is the true successor/new chipset.
That being said, I'd have to think that you'll be able to get a $300 card that is the same performance of the $1500 Titan X by Fall of next year, at the rate Nvidia is releasing new generations of cards. Thats a hell of a premium for ~1.5 years of bleeding edge technology. Titan X is about 20% better than a 980, for double the price. Not worth it IMHO.
Titan release dates have been
Original Titan = Feb 2013
Titan Black = Feb 2014
Titan X = March 2015
They release one every year like clockwork. First two were $1000 cards, 3rd one is expected to be $1500+. So from Feb 2013(original Titan) to September 2014(release of 970) that same performance dropped from $1000 to $300
Titan Black was a bit of a waste of a card, it really wasn't much of an improvement over the original Titan. Titan X is the true successor/new chipset.
That being said, I'd have to think that you'll be able to get a $300 card that is the same performance of the $1500 Titan X by Fall of next year, at the rate Nvidia is releasing new generations of cards. Thats a hell of a premium for ~1.5 years of bleeding edge technology. Titan X is about 20% better than a 980, for double the price. Not worth it IMHO.
- 6,029
- 5,915
No use anyway. Not for that price point. Anyone who buys one of these things needs a serious sit down. Anyone who buys SLI needs to be medicated.
The only people that will buy these are the wankers who want that top score on 3DMark for 5 minutes, and honestly, that's cool. It'll keep them broke so that they don't go to bars, meet women, and have kids (not that this was likely anyway, but hey). The gene pool wins in the end.
The only people that will buy these are the wankers who want that top score on 3DMark for 5 minutes, and honestly, that's cool. It'll keep them broke so that they don't go to bars, meet women, and have kids (not that this was likely anyway, but hey). The gene pool wins in the end.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 19,914
- 13,429
Alright bros, time to build a new computer. My desktop is almost 10 years old at this point and is currently running a geforce 260.
I want pretty good gaming performance (I really only play Marvel Heroes these days but might get back into MMOs if a good one is ever released again) while also being a good software development box. I will be doing a decent amount of virtualization when developing so I can run my application test server at the same time as my development box.
After everything I've read I'm thinking an i3 (core i3-4160 to be exact) would do the trick just fine and 32 gigs of RAM should suffice me for years to come. Any thoughts on that? And also what's the best bang for my buck when it comes to video cards and PSU?
It's been a long ass time since I've built a machine and I want to find a happy medium between performance and cost.
I want pretty good gaming performance (I really only play Marvel Heroes these days but might get back into MMOs if a good one is ever released again) while also being a good software development box. I will be doing a decent amount of virtualization when developing so I can run my application test server at the same time as my development box.
After everything I've read I'm thinking an i3 (core i3-4160 to be exact) would do the trick just fine and 32 gigs of RAM should suffice me for years to come. Any thoughts on that? And also what's the best bang for my buck when it comes to video cards and PSU?
It's been a long ass time since I've built a machine and I want to find a happy medium between performance and cost.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 19,914
- 13,429
Hmmpph, I thought the i3 supported virtualization?
Actually after reading about VT-d do I really need that? Won't VT-x suffice? This is for a personal development machine, not a server. I'll be running a "test server" with little to no load just to test code deployments and that's it. I MIGHT run a domain controller on one too but again, that's just so I can install some of the software to run on the test server.
I really don't know much about hardware enabled virtualization
Actually after reading about VT-d do I really need that? Won't VT-x suffice? This is for a personal development machine, not a server. I'll be running a "test server" with little to no load just to test code deployments and that's it. I MIGHT run a domain controller on one too but again, that's just so I can install some of the software to run on the test server.
I really don't know much about hardware enabled virtualization
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 19,914
- 13,429
Everything I read says there is almost no reason to get anything more than an i5. The difference is negligible for the i7.
Can you explain why you think the i7 is worth the extra money?
I agree with you on the 16gb of ram now that I actually looked at pricing. I thought memory was cheaper than it is right now.
Can you explain why you think the i7 is worth the extra money?
I agree with you on the 16gb of ram now that I actually looked at pricing. I thought memory was cheaper than it is right now.
jeffvader
it's only castles burning
- 402
- 33
Intel cuts 1Q revenue forecast, cites weak desktop PC demand
By BRANDON BAILEY
Mar. 12, 2015 1:44 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Intel's stock fell Thursday after the giant chipmaker lowered its first-quarter revenue forecast, citing weak demand for business desktop PCs and a strong dollar that affects revenue from overseas sales.
The new forecast calls for little or no revenue growth, in contrast with company statements in recent months that its PC business was returning to growth after two years of weakness.
Intel is the world's leading maker of microprocessor chips that serve as the brains for most personal computers, but its business has suffered as more consumers have turned to smartphones and tablets that use chips made by other companies. Although it has launched its own line of chips for handheld devices, Intel has been struggling to catch up in that market.
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich had been projecting growth since last fall, when he told analysts that the company's personal computer business was performing better than expected after the company had two years of overall sales declines. The company reported in January that revenue for the fourth quarter and the 2014 fiscal year had increased by 6 percent over the previous periods.
But on Thursday, Intel said small and medium-sized businesses are not buying as many new PCs as expected to replace older machines that run on the now-outdated Windows XP operating software from Microsoft. Analysts say Microsoft's decision to end support for Windows XP helped boost PC sales last year, but that boost has largely subsided.
Santa Clara, California-based Intel is now projecting first-quarter revenue of $12.5 billion to $13.1 billion. The midpoint of that range is the same as the $12.8 billion in revenue that Intel saw in the first quarter of 2014. But Intel previously had forecast revenue in the range of $13.2 billion to $14.2 billion and analysts surveyed by FactSet were predicting $13.71 billion.
Shares in Intel were down 4 percent in midday trading Thursday to $31.15. Intel is set to report first-quarter financial results on April 14.
By BRANDON BAILEY
Mar. 12, 2015 1:44 PM EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Intel's stock fell Thursday after the giant chipmaker lowered its first-quarter revenue forecast, citing weak demand for business desktop PCs and a strong dollar that affects revenue from overseas sales.
The new forecast calls for little or no revenue growth, in contrast with company statements in recent months that its PC business was returning to growth after two years of weakness.
Intel is the world's leading maker of microprocessor chips that serve as the brains for most personal computers, but its business has suffered as more consumers have turned to smartphones and tablets that use chips made by other companies. Although it has launched its own line of chips for handheld devices, Intel has been struggling to catch up in that market.
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich had been projecting growth since last fall, when he told analysts that the company's personal computer business was performing better than expected after the company had two years of overall sales declines. The company reported in January that revenue for the fourth quarter and the 2014 fiscal year had increased by 6 percent over the previous periods.
But on Thursday, Intel said small and medium-sized businesses are not buying as many new PCs as expected to replace older machines that run on the now-outdated Windows XP operating software from Microsoft. Analysts say Microsoft's decision to end support for Windows XP helped boost PC sales last year, but that boost has largely subsided.
Santa Clara, California-based Intel is now projecting first-quarter revenue of $12.5 billion to $13.1 billion. The midpoint of that range is the same as the $12.8 billion in revenue that Intel saw in the first quarter of 2014. But Intel previously had forecast revenue in the range of $13.2 billion to $14.2 billion and analysts surveyed by FactSet were predicting $13.71 billion.
Shares in Intel were down 4 percent in midday trading Thursday to $31.15. Intel is set to report first-quarter financial results on April 14.
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Just depends on what you are going to do with the machine. If it's purely a gaming and rerolled.org browsing machine, go i5. If you're doing anything else in the background while gaming, go i7.