Off-Topic Thread

Deano12345 · 30-09-2013 11:38PM

NTMK wrote: »

ive tried but it resulted in me wanting to throw the thing out the window and the ****ing thing also cut me open

the macho is to far behind it either imo

yes its bigger than the case it was put in

I nicknamed the IFX the 'cheese grater', lived up to the name ! H100/H80 are a doddle in comparison. (and at least 20x less painful)

papu · 01-10-2013 12:07AM

Deano12345 wrote: »

I nicknamed the IFX the 'cheese grater', lived up to the name ! H100/H80 are a doddle in comparison. (and at least 20x less painful)

but it's so pretty

Deano12345 · 01-10-2013 12:12AM

I do miss my IFX/Q9550/HAF922 rig sometimes (The CPU/Cooler/Board are in the spare parts drawer

)

Dave147 · 01-10-2013 03:03AM

Hey all, in the middle of an upgrade at the moment. About to buy the 256gb Samsung EVO SSD everyone is raging about, brother bought the 500gb but it's out of my budget. Just looking for people's opinions on whether it's worth upgrading my GPU too from Radeon HD7850 2GB to a GTX 770, is the price tag worth the difference I'm going to notice gaming? The game in question will probably be BF4.

BloodBath · 01-10-2013 03:17AM

I'd go for a 7950 and overclock it. A fair bit cheaper for around the same performance.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapphire-Graphics-Express-Display-Technology/dp/B00BBKO65S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1380593855&sr=8-3&keywords=7950

Revoker88 · 01-10-2013 03:19AM

Dave147 wrote: »

Hey all, in the middle of an upgrade at the moment. About to buy the 256gb Samsung EVO SSD everyone is raging about, brother bought the 500gb but it's out of my budget. Just looking for people's opinions on whether it's worth upgrading my GPU too from Radeon HD7850 2GB to a GTX 770, is the price tag worth the difference I'm going to notice gaming? The game in question will probably be BF4.

A nice overclocked 7950 would probably be better value tbh,but you should maybe hold off till proper pricing and aftermarket versions of the AMD 9xxx series come out. Some good 7950's are going for €250 though if you wanted to upgrade straight away,personally id wait. Nvidia may lower prices also when the new AMD cards come out so the 770 could be cheaper then aswell if thats the card you really wanted.

This is the one i think you should be looking at,faster than a 7970 for hopefully about €300 at the most. Have to see if nvidia drop there prices though to see if its as good value when its released:

This is a quote from wikipideia,not the most reliable source but enough to make me think you should wait
"Radeon R9 280

Radeon 280X was announced on September 25, 2013. With a launch price of $299, it will be based of off Tahiti XTL chip, being a slightly upgraded, rebranded Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition."

Dave147 · 01-10-2013 04:21AM

EoinHef wrote: »

A nice overclocked 7950 would probably be better value tbh,but you should maybe hold off till proper pricing and aftermarket versions of the AMD 9xxx series come out. Some good 7950's are going for €250 though if you wanted to upgrade straight away,personally id wait. Nvidia may lower prices also when the new AMD cards come out so the 770 could be cheaper then aswell if thats the card you really wanted.

This is the one i think you should be looking at,faster than a 7970 for hopefully about €300 at the most. Have to see if nvidia drop there prices though to see if its as good value when its released:

This is a quote from wikipideia,not the most reliable source but enough to make me think you should wait
"Radeon R9 280

Radeon 280X was announced on September 25, 2013. With a launch price of $299, it will be based of off Tahiti XTL chip, being a slightly upgraded, rebranded Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition."

Well I'd have a budget of about €350 on a GPU, reckon I might get €90-100 for my card, year old and never been OC'ed or put under any real strain.

Brother just bought me http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-P8B75-V-1155-Intel-Motherboard/dp/B007SDKT2Q and http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-3570-Quad-Core-Processor-Cache/dp/B0087EVHTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1380597628&sr=1-1&keywords=i5+3570, and 8GB RAM for my birthday so I don't need to spend money upgrading from my 4 year old Phenom and Gigabyte mobo, these will do fine

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 10:07AM

Dave147 wrote: »

Brother just bought me http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-P8B75-V-1155-Intel-Motherboard/dp/B007SDKT2Q and http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-3570-Quad-Core-Processor-Cache/dp/B0087EVHTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1380597628&sr=1-1&keywords=i5+3570, and 8GB RAM for my birthday so I don't need to spend money upgrading from my 4 year old Phenom and Gigabyte mobo, these will do fine

Jaysus, adopt me into that family, will ya?
I'm 26, housetrained, all I need is Cola and an internet connection.

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 10:21AM

Has RAM gotten very expensive?

in late 2011 I got 8GB Corsair DDR3 XMS3 PC3-1 for €40 from Scan.
Today the asking price is nearly twice that.

What gives?

NTMK · 01-10-2013 10:41AM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Has RAM gotten very expensive?

in late 2011 I got 8GB Corsair DDR3 XMS3 PC3-1 for €40 from Scan.
Today the asking price is nearly twice that.

What gives?

Yep
in 2011 Elpida one of the biggest ram manufacturers was facing bankruptcy and flooded the market with cheap ram dropping the price heavily
Micron bought them out and as a result became the 2nd largest manufacturer of ram behind samsung (who only do there own stuff and off the shelf pcs and servers)
Hynix are the 3rd biggest and recently lost 2 of 4 fabs due to fire. they claim that it didnt affect them but that equipment will take months to be ready to be used in a clean room again

so essentialy 90% of the market is controled by 3 companies (used to be 4) so sfa competition. one of the companys lost 50% of their production capacity which is about 10-15% of the worlds capacity and everyone is taking advantage of it

The 8gb 1600mhz ram i buy has gone up £10 since i bought in july and back a year the higher rated version was about the same price as what the 1600mhz is costing me now

TerrorFirmer · 01-10-2013 11:24AM

It actually baffles me as to how some of those coolers are mounted. :pac:

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 11:40AM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It actually baffles me as to how some of those coolers are mounted. :pac:

It seems most of them require some kind of blood sacrifice to keep them floating there.

Anyone know a good SSD for a SATA300 port?
Laptop upgrade.

Deano12345 · 01-10-2013 11:47AM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

It seems most of them require some kind of blood sacrifice to keep them floating there.

Anyone know a good SSD for a SATA300 port?
Laptop upgrade.

Sandisk Ultra SSD's. Found them reliable, if not exactly a speed demon !

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 11:52AM

Ok, last one.

Getting 8GB extra RAM for a RAMDisk for ArmA3.
I have 2 x 4 GB sticks meow. Would it make any difference to get 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB to go in the second channel?

NTMK · 01-10-2013 12:01PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Ok, last one.

Getting 8GB extra RAM for a RAMDisk for ArmA3.
I have 2 x 4 GB sticks meow. Would it make any difference to get 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB to go in the second channel?

i believe its better to have them paired so 4 x 4gb is better than 2 X 4Gb + 8gb

How is Arma 3 is it as big of a resource pig as 2?

marco_polo · 01-10-2013 01:03PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Ok, last one.

Getting 8GB extra RAM for a RAMDisk for ArmA3.
I have 2 x 4 GB sticks meow. Would it make any difference to get 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB to go in the second channel?

Definately with an Intel board you can configure a (1 X 8GB ) + (2 X 4 GB) dual channel arrangement (Once the three DIMMs are in the correct slots). It is faster than single channel, but a bit slower than a fully balanced (2 X 4 GB) + (2 X 4 GB) dual channel arrangement.

TBH you're probably not going to see much real world difference but I guess all thing (mainly cost) being equal the 2 X 4 GB would be better.

ShadowHearth · 01-10-2013 01:47PM

Damn it. Its Bf4 not optimised ( which is more likely ) or my gtx 680 needs a friends for sli! :mad:

raymix · 01-10-2013 01:54PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Ok, last one.

Getting 8GB extra RAM for a RAMDisk for ArmA3.
I have 2 x 4 GB sticks meow. Would it make any difference to get 1 x 8GB or 2 x 4GB to go in the second channel?

First off fast SSD is enough to stop stuttering when PBOs are loaded from south bridge.

Secondly, current 8GB can suffice just for RAMDISK tests, all you need is to hardlink PBOs used. You can find which PBOs are used by particular map/mod by looking into resource manager > HDD activity that comes with windows task manager.
You simply make your OS think that PBOs are still on HDD, but they are actually be moved to RAMdisk and loaded from there.
http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

here's an example on how to do it for DayZ:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152930

I've done it for Cherno, Namalsk and Wastelands Takistan maps no problem.

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 02:13PM

raymix wrote: »

First off fast SSD is enough to stop stuttering when PBOs are loaded from south bridge.

Secondly, current 8GB can suffice just for RAMDISK tests, all you need is to hardlink PBOs used. You can find which PBOs are used by particular map/mod by looking into resource manager > HDD activity that comes with windows task manager.
You simply make your OS think that PBOs are still on HDD, but they are actually be moved to RAMdisk and loaded from there.
http://schinagl.priv.at/nt/hardlinkshellext/hardlinkshellext.html

here's an example on how to do it for DayZ:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152930

I've done it for Cherno, Namalsk and Wastelands Takistan maps no problem.

This is purely a 'more FPS is more better' deal for me. I have ArmA on a SSD already and it's great.
But is could be faster.

NTMK · 01-10-2013 02:38PM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Damn it. Its Bf4 not optimised ( which is more likely ) or my gtx 680 needs a friends for sli! :mad:

nvidia released beta drivers last night for it afaik might help (or set your pc on fire:pac:)

ShadowHearth · 01-10-2013 03:11PM

NTMK wrote: »

nvidia released beta drivers last night for it afaik might help (or set your pc on fire:pac:)

I got newest drivers today, but it looks like a random issues, then pure fps hit. It can be stable high fps in the middle of big battle and then drop to 5 fps while looking at little smoke...
O know its first day of beta and it will improve. Its just weird to have such a performance hit, when it looks indentical to bf3...

Things is, I dont even know if I will buy it day one now. Looks like a lot of money for game+premium, which is pretty much bf3 map pack. nothing wrong with bf4 as game, its just I am really sick of BF3 at this stage and dont know if I will get much more of enjoyment.

I think I will spend playing different game today. I was looking forward to it more then bf4 beta and GTA 5 online put together - Terarria 1.2!!!!!!

NTMK · 01-10-2013 03:18PM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I got newest drivers today, but it looks like a random issues, then pure fps hit. It can be stable high fps in the middle of big battle and then drop to 5 fps while looking at little smoke...
O know its first day of beta and it will improve. Its just weird to have such a performance hit, when it looks indentical to bf3...

Things is, I dont even know if I will buy it day one now. Looks like a lot of money for game+premium, which is pretty much bf3 map pack. nothing wrong with bf4 as game, its just I am really sick of BF3 at this stage and dont know if I will get much more of enjoyment.

I think I will spend playing different game today. I was looking forward to it more then bf4 beta and GTA 5 online put together - Terarria 1.2!!!!!!

Yep thats solely optimisation id imagine nvidia will be using the next 15 days to fix drivers

tbh with BF4, premium wont be needed until spring of next year as thats when the map packs start coming out. i cant understand why people are buying it now for full price

raymix · 01-10-2013 03:28PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This is purely a 'more FPS is more better' deal for me. I have ArmA on a SSD already and it's great.
But is could be faster.

You won't get more FPS, this solution is for stutter that occurs when loading large files on demand from slow HDD. BI engine does not load these files onto RAM because of their size and not everyone can afford large amounts of RAM to compensate. This pretty much is true for almost any simulator out there.
The engine itself is very dynamic, does not introduce any static batching, no baking, no portals/occlusion or any sort of draw call reduction apart from camera FOV. The only thing they pretty much do is terrain and object LOD, object LODs being read from HDD not RAM making it stutter every time you zoom in or use scope, forcing model to change it's mesh, thus introducing stutter because of low south bridge speeds, fragmentation and speed of your HDD.
But wait there's more - player models are very complex, the network in multiplayer is affected by the amount of bones in each model (there are even seperate bones for each finger), each turn of your head is being sent trough the network within large radius. So if you want FPS as high as in Single player mode, you will need a host with very strong server and all the players on server with good connection and descent PCs. So your FPS is also heavily dependant on amount of players/NPCs around you. There's a reason DayZ standalone is going mmo multiplayer model and cutting down on zombie bone amounts.

For now, game is barelly utilizing the few cores of CPU it's using, you can do some OC to increase the headroom and gain more performance. Intel are the best for that because of their single thread speeds. Last but not least - cut down on object distance (amount of objects), not the view distance (terrain)

Did I miss something?

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 04:01PM

raymix wrote: »

You won't get more FPS, this solution is for stutter that occurs when loading large files on demand from slow HDD. BI engine does not load these files onto RAM because of their size and not everyone can afford large amounts of RAM to compensate. This pretty much is true for almost any simulator out there.
The engine itself is very dynamic, does not introduce any static batching, no baking, no portals/occlusion or any sort of draw call reduction apart from camera FOV. The only thing they pretty much do is terrain and object LOD, object LODs being read from HDD not RAM making it stutter every time you zoom in or use scope, forcing model to change it's mesh, thus introducing stutter because of low south bridge speeds, fragmentation and speed of your HDD.

More that it has to load new information every time an object needs to be updated. Since the character is usually moving around that would introduce a whole lot of new objects and change existing ones in the view frustum every tick meaning near constant read from the drive.

raymix wrote: »

But wait there's more - player models are very complex, the network in multiplayer is affected by the amount of bones in each model (there are even seperate bones for each finger), each turn of your head is being sent trough the network within large radius. So if you want FPS as high as in Single player mode, you will need a host with very strong server and all the players on server with good connection and descent PCs. So your FPS is also heavily dependant on amount of players/NPCs around you. There's a reason DayZ standalone is going mmo multiplayer model and cutting down on zombie bone amounts.

It's actually the entire server that gets updated for every action you make.
You're also making animations sound a bit more complex than they actually are.

raymix wrote: »

For now, game is barelly utilizing the few cores of CPU it's using, you can do some OC to increase the headroom and gain more performance. Intel are the best for that because of their single thread speeds. Last but not least - cut down on object distance (amount of objects), not the view distance (terrain)

Did I miss something?

My system is, in total running at about 60% utilisation, but I'm not breaking 60FPS so something is bottlenecking me. If RAM were still cheap I'd have no problem dropping €40 to see a RAMDisk in action and see what kind of difference it makes. And, hopefully see my system get properly used.

NTMK · 01-10-2013 05:22PM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I got newest drivers today, but it looks like a random issues, then pure fps hit. It can be stable high fps in the middle of big battle and then drop to 5 fps while looking at little smoke...
O know its first day of beta and it will improve. Its just weird to have such a performance hit, when it looks indentical to bf3...

Things is, I dont even know if I will buy it day one now. Looks like a lot of money for game+premium, which is pretty much bf3 map pack. nothing wrong with bf4 as game, its just I am really sick of BF3 at this stage and dont know if I will get much more of enjoyment.

I think I will spend playing different game today. I was looking forward to it more then bf4 beta and GTA 5 online put together - Terarria 1.2!!!!!!

just had a game of it there and my fps never dropped below 50 and averaging 60-70 with everything on high/ultra and FOV set to 120 on a 780 so it might be a case of older nvidia cards not being optimised yet

It looks and sounds soooo much better than BF3 though i have to say and feels smoother animation wise to me

Lu Tze · 01-10-2013 05:37PM

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

More that it has to load new information every time an object needs to be updated. Since the character is usually moving around that would introduce a whole lot of new objects and change existing ones in the view frustum every tick meaning near constant read from the drive.

It's actually the entire server that gets updated for every action you make.
You're also making animations sound a bit more complex than they actually are.

My system is, in total running at about 60% utilisation, but I'm not breaking 60FPS so something is bottlenecking me. If RAM were still cheap I'd have no problem dropping €40 to see a RAMDisk in action and see what kind of difference it makes. And, hopefully see my system get properly used.

What size ramdisk do you need? I presume you could get away with less than 4GB ram for the system at the moment, leaving you with a 4 GB disk.

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 06:06PM

Lu Tze wrote: »

What size ramdisk do you need? I presume you could get away with less than 4GB ram for the system at the moment, leaving you with a 4 GB disk.

Would you believe that sometimes I get Windows warning me about running out of RAM?

It's probably my fault fro not being careful, but damnit I didn't buy my machine to have to be careful with my resources!

I'm not sure about the size of disk but I play ArmA with a guy who has one already and can badger him.

BloodBath · 01-10-2013 06:09PM

Things is, I dont even know if I will buy it day one now. Looks like a lot of money for game+premium, which is pretty much bf3 map pack. nothing wrong with bf4 as game, its just I am really sick of BF3 at this stage and dont know if I will get much more of enjoyment.

Sadly I feel BF is going to go the way of COD with EA throwing money at DICE. BF4 is way too soon after BF3 and set in the same timeline. I would love to see a modern WW2 game with a great storyline and a modern graphics engine. At least it would break up the monotony of modern shooters and give a better gap between BF3 and BF4.

A proper sequel to BF 1942 or even 2142 would be welcome at this stage. But the EA overlords know that modern shooters will make the most money so that's what we're stuck with. A battlefield game or a battlefield expansion every 3-4 months for eternity.

Genghiz Cohen · 01-10-2013 07:32PM

BloodBath wrote: »

A proper sequel to BF 1942 or even 2142 would be welcome at this stage. But the EA overlords know that modern shooters will make the most money so that's what we're stuck with. A battlefield game or a battlefield expansion every 3-4 months for eternity.

Talking to Girlfriend about 10 mins ago and it hit me that we will never see a proper 2142 sequel. That made me a sad panda...

NTMK · 01-10-2013 07:40PM

BloodBath wrote: »

Sadly I feel BF is going to go the way of COD with EA throwing money at DICE. BF4 is way too soon after BF3 and set in the same timeline. I would love to see a modern WW2 game with a great storyline and a modern graphics engine. At least it would break up the monotony of modern shooters and give a better gap between BF3 and BF4.

A proper sequel to BF 1942 or even 2142 would be welcome at this stage. But the EA overlords know that modern shooters will make the most money so that's what we're stuck with. A battlefield game or a battlefield expansion every 3-4 months for eternity.

you'll probably see a 2142 sequel next as things seem to be moving towards futuristic shooters but that probably depends on how many titanfall games EA are contracted to publish

I'd love a WW2 BF game now tbh

Off-Topic Thread

Comments