Overwritten.net
Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: MysterD on Friday, February 04, 2011, 04:29:47 PM
-
UPDATED - 07-13-2015:
MysterD's Windows 7 PC:
Case -> Cooler Master 932
Watt Supply -> 800 Watts - Corsair Gaming Series power supply
OS -> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM
Motherboard -> Socket 1366 ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard (for 2 SLI allowed on video cards).
Processor -> Intel i7 950 @ 3.06 Ghz Quad-Core processor multi-threaded (8 threads)
RAM -> 16 GB DDR3 RAM total:
A. 8 GB worth of Corsair DDR3 1600 XMS3
B. 8 GB worth of Corsair DDR3 1833 Vengeance
Optical Drives -> TWO Sony Scribe DVD-Burners
Video Card -> Current: "4GB" VRAM GeForce GTX 970.
Previous card (uninstalled): 4 GB VRAM of EVGA GeForce GTX 960.
Original card (uninstalled): 1GB VRAM of EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti.
Monitor:
Current: 28'' Samsung U28E590D 4K TN-panel monitor.
Previous Monitor: HP 2311x 23" monitor (which has been moved over + connected to the laptop gaming PC).
Internal Hard Drive(s) -> FOUR Western Digital Hard Disk Drives total:
A. THREE Western Digital Black Caviar 1 TB with 64MB cache & 7200 RPM [for 3 TB of HDD space in total]
B. ONE Western Digital Black Cavair 2 TB with 64 MB cache & 7200 RPM
All for a total # of TB's for internal = approx. 5 TB.
External Hard Drive(s) -> TWO Seagate External Drives total:
A. 500 GB GoFlex Free Agent GoFlex.
B. 2 TB BackUp Plus.
All for a total # of TB's for externals = approx. 2.5 TB of space.
ORIGINAL POST:
After plenty of deliberation and been wanting to do this for quite some time and advice from friends and people I know that've done this, my dad and I are going to put a PC together ourselves.
So, a few questions and I'll list what we've got nailed down in stone and what I'm debating...
What do you like for mobo's? What mobo goes best w/ Intel i7 950 @ 3.06 Ghz (Quad-Core)?
I want something roomy...
Any other advice?
-
You'll want at least a 486 with 8MB of RAM.
-
I am building a new PC as well. My best advise:
WAIT TILL APRIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Intel Sandy Bridge is out. These processors are superior to current Core i processors in every way, and significantly faster. The mobos for these will be compatible with processors that come for two or three years at least.
The only problem is that the chipset had a slight problem which only affected certain mobos where SATA 0 and SATA 1 were fine, but the other SATA ports had some issues. Intel did a recall to be safe, and it should all be good by April at the latest.
So yea, wait for Sandy Bridge if you can, as prices will be the same as current gen as well. The best option is the core i5 2500K Sandy Bridge.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested
(http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35039.png)
(http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35030.png)
In all but the heaviest threaded applications, Sandy Bridge is the fastest chip on the block—and you get the performance at a fairly reasonable price. The Core i7-2600K is tempting at $317 but the Core i5-2500K is absolutely a steal at $216. You're getting nearly $999 worth of performance at roughly a quarter of the cost. Compared to a Core i5-750/760, you'll get an additional 10-50% performance across the board in existing applications, and all that from a ~25% increase in clock speed. A big portion of what Sandy Bridge delivers is due to architectural enhancements, the type of thing we've come to expect from an Intel tock. Starting with Conroe, repeating with Nehalem, and going strong once more with Sandy Bridge, Intel makes this all seem so very easy.
Video cards should also be cheaper by then, but you can get the 560.
-
You'll want at least a 486 with 8MB of RAM.
I was discussing this with my friend the other day. I remember when I had 12MB of RAM on my 486 and everyone was crazy envious. :D
-
Damn....they always seem to be popping out new stuff so rapidly and quickly...hehe.
How the hell am I supposed to keep up w/ all of this? :P
I already got that Intel i7 950 processor on hold at Microcenter for $200 (before taxes) and was planning to get it sometime this weekend.
EDIT:
Which mobo's go w/ that i5-2500K Sandy Bridge?
-
If you need to go for it now then that's a good deal. But Sandy Bridge was on the horizon since December last year.
Anyway, if you want to go for the 950, then go ahead, as it won't be a huge performance difference in games. Probably about 5 to 10 fps for most. You have to decide if you can wait. The thing is that Sandy Bridge should have been available *now*, had they not discovered that problem with the SATA II ports.
The mobos are the H67/P67. I don't think you can get the mobos before April.
-
If you need to go for it now then that's a good deal. But Sandy Bridge was on the horizon since December last year.
Anyway, if you want to go for the 950, then go ahead, as it won't be a huge performance difference in games. Probably about 5 to 10 fps for most. You have to decide if you can wait. The thing is that Sandy Bridge should have been available *now*, had they not discovered that problem with the SATA II ports.
The mobos are the H67/P67. I don't think you can get the mobos before April.
5 to 10 FPS for most games?
That honestly ain't a hell of a lot - given that I'm betting I'd probably be running most stuff at very high settings, anyways - once this thing gets built.
Is the power consumption going to be much lower w/ the i-2500 vs. 950?
How much would those H67 and P67's mobo's run?
-
I was going to tell you that 8gb of RAM is overkill, but then it hit me that I have 6GB in my desktop because it ended up being cheaper to get two extra sticks of 2GB in than whatever other option when I had a faulty stick and needed to replace one.
-
I am building a new PC as well. My best advise:
WAIT TILL APRIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Intel Sandy Bridge is out. These processors are superior to current Core i processors in every way, and significantly faster. The mobos for these will be compatible with processors that come for two or three years at least.
The only problem is that the chipset had a slight problem which only affected certain mobos where SATA 0 and SATA 1 were fine, but the other SATA ports had some issues. Intel did a recall to be safe, and it should all be good by April at the latest.
So yea, wait for Sandy Bridge if you can, as prices will be the same as current gen as well. The best option is the core i5 2500K Sandy Bridge.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35039.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35030.png
Video cards should also be cheaper by then, but you can get the 560.
I personally disagree with the wait part. In the PC world, there is always something right around the corner. If you wait for the next great thing, you will always be waiting. I say just commit to something and do it.
-
I do agree to a point, but there are exceptions. When you're literally on the verge of a release, waiting a few months can mean either better price to performance or bigger price breaks on the components you're already looking at. You really can't go wrong in either case.
-
Yea pretty much what GPW said. It depends on your needs, really. If you have to, you have to. But if you can wait and you know something next gen is around the corner, it is silly not to, I feel.
I've seen you say "there is always something around the corner" before, and that's simply not true when it comes to generational leaps. I completely understand your point when it comes to refinements in tech as there is always a refinement of tech around the corner for sure, but in my opinion, it isn't wise not to wait when the next gen is ready for release. Next gen processors from Intel (Pentium to C2D, C2D to Core i7, and Core i XXX to Core i XXXX) happen once every two years? Once every 24 months isn't around the corner.
Look at it this way. The intel roadmap reveals that they will continue to refine Sandy Bridge for the next three years. Basically the motherboard you buy for it will last you three years throughout the upgrades.
One final point is this. While Sandy Bridge is definitely more awesome than Nehalem (its predecessor), it doesn't compare to how much more awesome the Conroe (C2D) processors were than the P4s. Imagine knowing that C2D was around the corner (which we knew months in advance), and still not waiting even if you could.
By the way, the other day my cousin's RAM died. We went to buy more, and for some reason, DDR3 costs 30% less than DDR2 here. I guess DDR3 is the norm now.
-
Yeah, but a CPU is just one component of many. My experience has always been that if I wait four to six months, then some other tech will be on the verge of a nice jump four to six months after that and it will be attractive to wait for that. Rinse and repeat. Like in the past going from two to four CPU cores, SDRAM to RDRAM to DDR to DDR2 to DDR3, single to dual channel memory, a smaller manufacturing process, a new CPU socket that will end up being more future-proof, a new video card revision that promises a big jump in performance, a new motherboard chipset, a new hdd interface with double the bandwidth, new hdds with faster rotational speeds, a new GPU chipset, GPU chipsets that include dedicated physics processing, video cards with a new faster type of RAM, etc. There are tons of examples of this.
So, sure while this new CPU architecture might change the CPU game for a couple years, nine to ten months from now there is probably some other tech on the horizon that will be a game changer in whatever category that tech is in. I have not really followed PC hardware for the last few years so it is possible that this new CPU type is the only big change coming to PCs in the next year, but somehow I doubt it. In any case, I'm not advising MysterD to jump the gun here and not wait. All I'm really saying is that there is always some interesting new tech around the corner and at some point you just have to commit to something and get it, whatever that point may be.
I got advice on my current PC to wait for quad core processors to come out and to wait for the successor to the nVidia 8800 series. I decided not to wait, and here I am, still completely happy with my PC, though I did later upgrade to a Core 2 Quad since it was LGA775 like my Core 2 Duo (it ended up being just a $70 upgrade after selling the C2D on eBay). I put this thing together before shortly before Vista was released. So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
-
That's the frustration of trying to stay current with PCs. I liken it to a river. No matter when you jump in, you'll be swept downstream quickly. You can swim against the current for a while, but you'll only slow down the backward slide. Eventually, you'll have to swim ashore and walk back to the pier. Your only other choice is not to jump in at all.
As long as I can do what I need to do from way downstream, I'm not trekking on foot all the way back to that pier. I've had it with that, for now.
-
I don't think it is nearly that bad Cobra. My PC is many years old, but it is still rocking most games.
-
Yeah, but a CPU is just one component of many. My experience has always been that if I wait four to six months, then some other tech will be on the verge of a nice jump four to six months after that and it will be attractive to wait for that. Rinse and repeat. Like in the past going from two to four CPU cores, SDRAM to RDRAM to DDR to DDR2 to DDR3, single to dual channel memory, a smaller manufacturing process, a new CPU socket that will end up being more future-proof, a new video card revision that promises a big jump in performance, a new motherboard chipset, a new hdd interface with double the bandwidth, new hdds with faster rotational speeds, a new GPU chipset, GPU chipsets that include dedicated physics processing, video cards with a new faster type of RAM, etc. There are tons of examples of this.
So, sure while this new CPU architecture might change the CPU game for a couple years, nine to ten months from now there is probably some other tech on the horizon that will be a game changer in whatever category that tech is in. I have not really followed PC hardware for the last few years so it is possible that this new CPU type is the only big change coming to PCs in the next year, but somehow I doubt it. In any case, I'm not advising MysterD to jump the gun here and not wait. All I'm really saying is that there is always some interesting new tech around the corner and at some point you just have to commit to something and get it, whatever that point may be.
I got advice on my current PC to wait for quad core processors to come out and to wait for the successor to the nVidia 8800 series. I decided not to wait, and here I am, still completely happy with my PC, though I did later upgrade to a Core 2 Quad since it was LGA775 like my Core 2 Duo (it ended up being just a $70 upgrade after selling the C2D on eBay). I put this thing together before shortly before Vista was released. So I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
The differences you are talking about are refinements in tech. Waiting for newer refinements in tech is a personal decision, and I don't feel as strongly about it. What I am talking about are generational leaps.
Waiting to go quadcore, or waiting for DDR3 instead of DDR2 isn't something I would have done. Small improvements like that happen a lot. Quadcore took a long time before it started to benefit gaming and other software in general. DDR3 is nicer than DDR2, but it isn't something I'd wait six months for.
This is a new generation of CPUs that will require their own mobos. Imagine someone paying full price for a crappy P4 system when C2D was a few months away. C2D basically swept P4 off the market. I am not saying that you should wait for new RAM types, or more cores or whatever. But I feel that when generation leaps are around the corner, then it isn't a bad idea to wait, especially since it will cause significant price drops in what you are looking to buy anyway.
Yes you will always have minor stuff like PCI E updates, USB updates, newer RAM, or processors with more cores around the corner. But if you are part of that generation, you can still find it cost effective to enjoy newer refinements in tech without taking a huge dent in the wallet.
Also, here is the difference between you not waiting then (which was fine), and you not waiting now. The C2Quad you didn't wait for wasn't a generational leap. It was a refinement of Conroe (C2D/C2Q series). Because you already had a C2D motherboard, you easily managed to upgrade when you wanted. Imagine if you had a P4 system because you didn't wait for C2D. Being a generation behind, to enjoy quadcore, you would have had to have built a new system entirely.
This is the end of the line for Nehalam. Core i XXX processors which work with current mobos won't see better tech in the future.
Core i XXXX processors i.e. Sandy Bridge, require their own mobos. Most of these processors are four core, though there is talk of six and eight core Sandy Bridge processors next year. Say that you not wait till Sandy Bridge is out in the wild, and go for Nehalem i.e. Core i XXX right now. It is just a processor and chances are that you'll be happy with it. But what happens when you want to go for an eight core Sandy Bridge next year?
Unlike the situation where you spent a few hundred bucks, and upgraded your core2duo to a core2quad, you'll now have to spring for a new motherboard, and go through the pain of reinstalling all your software. And there can be a lot of compatibility issues with RAM.
It is the difference between waiting for the next processor for your generation, and waiting for new tech entirely.
By the way, if someone owns a core i XXX processor, don't feel bad. The Core i XXXX processors won't be that much better, that you should buy a new system. In fact, I don't think D ever upgrades, and goes for a new system entirely, so if he doesn't want to wait, he should get the core i xxx processor.
-
768 MB Galaxy GeForce GTX 460 GC Edition is $89.99 after rebate on Tiger. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6589096&Sku=G458-0464%20SC)
Do you guys know anything about Galaxy?
-
Nope. I'd stick with known brands. Also, spend a bit more and get the 560 if you can.
-
I think you should just get a Macbook Air and call it a day.
-
768 MB Galaxy GeForce GTX 460 GC Edition is $89.99 after rebate on Tiger. (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6589096&Sku=G458-0464%20SC)
Do you guys know anything about Galaxy?
I had a Galaxy card at one point for a few months. I think it was my 9500GT. No problems with it, but like Pug said, probably best to stay with the known brands.
-
I think you should just get a Macbook Air and call it a day.
:-X
-
I think you should just get a Macbook Air and call it a day.
I get why people like these things but not having an optical drive in chassis would kill me. Maybe I need to be more cloud oriented? I dunno.
-
I don't know... I don't think an optical drive is all that important nowadays. For my next laptop, I was thinking of getting an Alienware m11x (though I do hope that they will release a m13x... would prefer a larger screen) and that one doesn't have an optical drive. Nearly everything is available digitally nowadays. That said though, I would still probably get an external drive just in case in the odd cases where I would need one.
I was joking about the Macbook Air thing by the way. That is one overpriced piece of shit that I would never consider buying. I am currently trying to convince this girl I know NOT to get one (her MacBook is dying and she requires a new laptop).
-
Optical drives are good for
1.Retail games so you can install them;
2.Retail games that have DRM forcing you to have the game-disc in the drive to boot the game;
3.AND good for backing-up digitally-purchased games to disc so you have a physical copy of them (as long as it's a your optical driver's a burner).
-
Optical drives are good for
1.Retail games so you can install them;
2.Retail games that have DRM forcing you to have the game-disc in the drive to boot the game;
3.AND good for backing-up digitally-purchased games to disc so you have a physical copy of them (as long as it's a your optical driver's a burner).
And watching a few dvds on an seventeen hour international flight.
Though if you fly Emirates Airlines they have a pretty good entertainment system on board. Best airline I've ever flown hands down and business class made seventeen hours seem like cake. They greeted us with hot towels, fresh sushi, and champagne (or a non-alcoholic beverage), and gave us a great little hygiene travel kit in a leather case...all before the plane even took off. Dudes, it was awesome. The only thing bad about the business class was seeing how awesome first class was.
-
3.AND good for backing-up digitally-purchased games to disc so you have a physical copy of them (as long as it's a your optical driver's a burner).
You have a good point here, but you are too narrowly focused. I use my optical drive to back up all kinds of stuff, especially at work. I also use it to make various boot CDs for things like data recovery and anti-virus. Though I suppose the field I'm in has something to do with the usage my optical drive gets.
-
You have a good point here, but you are too narrowly focused. I use my optical drive to back up all kinds of stuff, especially at work. I also use it to make various boot CDs for things like data recovery and anti-virus. Though I suppose the field I'm in has something to do with the usage my optical drive gets.
Yes, more excellent points.
Add a new one to the list then...
#4. Backing up anything else of importance to the user on disc so the user has a physical copy of it for back-up purposes.
-
haha I smiled @ "Add a new one to the list then..."
-
The differences you are talking about are refinements in tech. Waiting for newer refinements in tech is a personal decision, and I don't feel as strongly about it. What I am talking about are generational leaps.
Waiting to go quadcore, or waiting for DDR3 instead of DDR2 isn't something I would have done. Small improvements like that happen a lot. Quadcore took a long time before it started to benefit gaming and other software in general. DDR3 is nicer than DDR2, but it isn't something I'd wait six months for.
This is a new generation of CPUs that will require their own mobos. Imagine someone paying full price for a crappy P4 system when C2D was a few months away. C2D basically swept P4 off the market. I am not saying that you should wait for new RAM types, or more cores or whatever. But I feel that when generation leaps are around the corner, then it isn't a bad idea to wait, especially since it will cause significant price drops in what you are looking to buy anyway.
Yes you will always have minor stuff like PCI E updates, USB updates, newer RAM, or processors with more cores around the corner. But if you are part of that generation, you can still find it cost effective to enjoy newer refinements in tech without taking a huge dent in the wallet.
Also, here is the difference between you not waiting then (which was fine), and you not waiting now. The C2Quad you didn't wait for wasn't a generational leap. It was a refinement of Conroe (C2D/C2Q series). Because you already had a C2D motherboard, you easily managed to upgrade when you wanted. Imagine if you had a P4 system because you didn't wait for C2D. Being a generation behind, to enjoy quadcore, you would have had to have built a new system entirely.
This is the end of the line for Nehalam. Core i XXX processors which work with current mobos won't see better tech in the future.
Core i XXXX processors i.e. Sandy Bridge, require their own mobos. Most of these processors are four core, though there is talk of six and eight core Sandy Bridge processors next year. Say that you not wait till Sandy Bridge is out in the wild, and go for Nehalem i.e. Core i XXX right now. It is just a processor and chances are that you'll be happy with it. But what happens when you want to go for an eight core Sandy Bridge next year?
Unlike the situation where you spent a few hundred bucks, and upgraded your core2duo to a core2quad, you'll now have to spring for a new motherboard, and go through the pain of reinstalling all your software. And there can be a lot of compatibility issues with RAM.
It is the difference between waiting for the next processor for your generation, and waiting for new tech entirely.
By the way, if someone owns a core i XXX processor, don't feel bad. The Core i XXXX processors won't be that much better, that you should buy a new system. In fact, I don't think D ever upgrades, and goes for a new system entirely, so if he doesn't want to wait, he should get the core i xxx processor.
So, I see here you have Sandy Bridge processors listed as "Core i XXXX". What do you mean by this? I just went on Newegg and drilled down to Sandy Bridge architecture CPUs and they are all called Core i3, i5, and i7. Is this really the "generational leap" you were talking about ealier?
Edit: I didn't mean this to sound as it did. I just mean that if it was a whole new architecture akin to P4 to Conroe, wouldn't they have renamed their lines?
-
Ordered recently a EVGA 1GB GeForce GTX 560 Ti.
Next - going after some 1366 mobo [which my i7 supports].
-
Socket 1366 ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard arrived today.
All PC components are here. :)
-
D, make a video of yourself assembling it to the tune of Europe's "Final Countdown" :P
-
Hey... they didn't rename the line for marketing purposes. It requires everything new... mobo etc.
-
Wow, this thing...is pretty bad-ass. :)
I can run NFS: Hot Pursuit all maxed-out at highest res' and game settings at 60 FPS w/out any hitches.
Metro 2033 looks amazing all maxed-out at graphics settings. Not running highest res', but still - wow, wow, wow.
Dragon Age 2 looks pretty good all maxed-out and runs quite well.
Should I really be playing w/ fan settings and stuff? Will I even need to?
I got them at their defaults.
W/ nothing going, 35 degrees on the CPU; 31 degrees on the NB.
Running a game, it can go anywhere from around 40-something to mid 50's in degrees.
Sure isn't running anywhere as hot as my old PC could. :)
-
A trip down memory lane.. Remember when these specs were phenomenal (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/old_school_monday_dream_machine_1998)?
-
Wow, this thing...is pretty bad-ass. :)
I can run NFS: Hot Pursuit all maxed-out at highest res' and game settings at 60 FPS w/out any hitches.
Metro 2033 looks amazing all maxed-out at graphics settings. Not running highest res', but still - wow, wow, wow.
Dragon Age 2 looks pretty good all maxed-out and runs quite well.
Should I really be playing w/ fan settings and stuff? Will I even need to?
I got them at their defaults.
W/ nothing going, 35 degrees on the CPU; 31 degrees on the NB.
Running a game, it can go anywhere from around 40-something to mid 50's in degrees.
Sure isn't running anywhere as hot as my old PC could. :)
I hope you have a good monitor or two and running them at least 1680x1050 and higher.
-
I run most games at 1920x1080
Acer 21'' P216 HV Monitor.
-
Updated my PC, since some RAM arrived.
Added 8 GB worth of Corsair DDR3 1833 Vengeance.
Now have a total of 16GB of RAM.
Now, I need a good sale on a 4GB VRAM GF 970. ;)
-
Update.
MyD ordered a 4GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960.
Once it shows up here, that'll be replacing the 560 Ti.
-
Fancy. I need to upgrade.
-
I remember when I used to obsess over this stuff. Seems so long ago.
-
I still look furtively at PCs now and then, but I always end up shying away.
-
I've been debating for a while on either upgrading to a 4GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960 (often around $220-260) or
4 GB 3.5 VRAM 970 (often around $300-400).
Obviously, 2 GB VRAM GF 960 was never on the table for me. Always was aiming for 3GB VRAM or more, preferably 4GB or above.
I really don't like that the bus on the GTX 960 is 128-bit, while on the 970 it's 256. Plus, my 560 Ti has a 256-bit bus.
Still, that 4GB VRAM on that 960 flavor buffer is quite big. Well, certainly bigger than my 1 GB VRAM GF 560 Ti.
There's other cards with more VRAM - i.e. Radeon R9 390x has 8GB VRAM; a new GF 980 Ti flavor has 6 GB VRAM; and we won't get into expensive $1000 NVidia Titan card land (12 GB).
Even though performance for bang-for-buck, the 970 is probably the better buy for future-proofing - i.e. just check the benchmarks online...the 970's gonna handle 1080p + 1440p way better than the 4GB 960. It might do alright w/ some games at 4K. But, not having that extra .5 GB VRAM always open - that could be a problem for some games at some higher settings...especially even more so at 4K.
4GB 960 seems really geared for those doing w/ 1080p...and sticking with that. I don't have 1440p monitor yet, I'm still on 1080p here. I could be wrong here - but I don't really see myself moving to 4K anytime soon, honestly.
My 970 concern was always the 3.5 GB issue, as it might not be enough of a buffer for the higher-texture quality, if I want the option to run it and think I might be able to handle it w/ certain games. Some games want 4GB VRAM (or more) for their top settings. Go see Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, Ryse, ACU, FC4, The Crew, etc. While the 4GB 960 might not run it as well period (i.e. 4GB 960 is about half of a 970, spec-wise + performance-wise on everything except the 4GB VRAM buffer), at least there won't be stutters when trying those textures, if it needs to eat over 3.5 GB...since the other 0.5GB is often swapping what it's doing (could be used for other things, could be used when necessary if it calls for the 0.5 GB but it's still on a way slower bus and can take forever to find it, or whatever).
At least if 4GB 960 runs like shit on higher settings on a game, it runs like shit straight-up consistently. 4GB 960 won't be have the 970's sudden stutters, slow-downs and weird things just b/c it can't find that last 0.5 GB b/c that channel's slow (32-bit bus) is delegated to doing....well, whatever it feels like doing!
AMD was never an option I was looking much at + considering. While the 3 GB VRAM Radeon R9 280's 384-bit bus slaughters the 4GB GF GTX 960 128-bit and it outperforms that card quite a bit - the 3GB VRAM buffer's still a wall to me. BTW - the R9 280x is very similar in pricing to the 4GB GeForce GTX 960, that's why I'm comparing them.
I'm a NVidia guy, for better and/or for worse. I've been using only GeForce cards since the old 64 MB GF2 MX 400.
-
I remember when I used to obsess over this stuff. Seems so long ago.
I still do :D
After nearly 7 years of working with laptops and desktop-replacements I finally went back to my origins and built a new rig.
In due time, I'll share the specs and the story of how/why I decided to go back to the desktop.
-
I've been debating for a while on either upgrading to a 4GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960 (often around $220-260) or 4 GB 3.5 VRAM 970 (often around $300-400).
Obviously, 2 GB VRAM GF 960 was never on the table for me. Always was aiming for 3GB VRAM or more, preferably 4GB or above.
I really don't like that the bus on the GTX 960 is 128-bit, while on the 970 it's 256. Plus, my 560 Ti has a 256-bit bus.
Still, that 4GB VRAM on that 960 flavor buffer is quite big. Well, certainly bigger than my 1 GB VRAM GF 560 Ti.
There's other cards with more VRAM - i.e. Radeon R9 390x has 8GB VRAM; a new GF 980 Ti flavor has 6 GB VRAM; and we won't get into expensive $1000 NVidia Titan card land (12 GB).
. . . [etc]
And that's why I shy away. First, buy or build a computer. Second, buy a graphics computer to stuff into it. The price of the second may be greater than the first's. It's really gotten out of hand. Then there's the cheap computer that does everything but gaming. Good enough.
-
I've been really happy with my 960, have fun.
-
And that's why I shy away. First, buy or build a computer. Second, buy a graphics computer to stuff into it. The price of the second may be greater than the first's. It's really gotten out of hand. Then there's the cheap computer that does everything but gaming. Good enough.
I really dig the whole buying parts and computer-building part. That's fun to me. :)
Especially waiting for sales and saving a good amount of $ on this stuff.
There's also no real reason to bet the farm on a video-card, when you buy one. I have not spent more than $250 on a vid-card ever, when I do actually buy a vid-card - which is probably every 3-5 years or so. I spent around $204 on my new 4GB 960 vid-card, BTW - caught it in a sale + had some Amazon GC's (Gift Cards) + Amazon Points to use. I hardly buy any games or anything from Amazon anymore, unfortunately - so this seemed like the perfect thing to throw a little bit of my Amazon GC's + Points & actual real $ into.
My 1 GB VRAM GeForce 560 Ti card has lasted me since May 2011, when Witcher 2 came out - which is when I built this PC. It could've still lasted me, if I wanted it to - but, I do have games like Witcher 3, The Evil Within, AC Unity, and (since I bought the vid-card) now Batman: AK that really are pushing into the 2GB VRAM minimum requirement (And recommending even more GB of VRAM, for some settings + instances). We're likely only going to see more of this, especially w/ less games being release on the old-consoles (i.e. PS3 + X360) and more of them strictly on newer platforms (i.e. PS4 + X1). So, that automatically makes it more likely these PC versions are using for the low-end common denominator (PS4 + X1), thus greatly causing the recent huge spike in PC requirements. Even worse, if they throw together an unoptimized, basic and/or lazy PC version.
Here we are now, 2015. My 1 GB VRAM card lasted a little over 4 years. Not bad at all, IMHO. I wait for sales on everything. I keep my eyes open + play the "waiting for a sale" game w/ hardware + PC games. No other way to play this game, TBH. For 4GB VRAM card at a little over $200 after all of my Amazon GC's + Points - I couldn't just sit around and wait. Had to pull the punch.
-
I've been really happy with my 960, have fun.
Do you have a 2GB or 4GB 960?
-
2GB - I don't think the 4GB version was out when I bought it. That said, I'm running in 1680 x 1050, so sub 1080p and it's been great - I'm sure if I was hitting anything above 1080p it would make more of a difference. I also found that I don't often notice the difference in texture resolution between high and ultra (or whatever any given game uses). Not sure if I'm just blind or it's because of the resolution I'm using but I usually can't tell and thus don't feel like I'm missing out when I can't put the setting to Ultra in Shadow of Mordor. I'm guessing a higher resolution and bigger monitor would change that but I'll take it for now.
-
2GB - I don't think the 4GB version was out when I bought it. That said, I'm running in 1680 x 1050, so sub 1080p and it's been great - I'm sure if I was hitting anything above 1080p it would make more of a difference. I also found that I don't often notice the difference in texture resolution between high and ultra (or whatever any given game uses). Not sure if I'm just blind or it's because of the resolution I'm using but I usually can't tell and thus don't feel like I'm missing out when I can't put the setting to Ultra in Shadow of Mordor. I'm guessing a higher resolution and bigger monitor would change that but I'll take it for now.
Wasn't sure if you just bought a 960 recently. But, yeah - 4GB VRAM version is only a few months old.
Glad to see your card's currently working out for you, for now. With more games beginning to require 2 GB VRAM (see ACU + W3 ) and even have the nerve to recommend 3GB (W3) or 4GB (TEW) or more (SoM) - I hope you don't wind-up so quickly having to look for another upgrade. It is getting out of hand quickly - as now there's 4GB card (GF 960 new version, 970, 980 regular version); 6 GB cards (980 Ti version); 8 GB cards (Radeon R9 390X); and the crazy 12 GB Titans.
Yeah, I think if you were aiming for 1080p or more, you'd notice differences. I certainly saw differences when running a game at 720p v. 1080p - i.e. The Evil Within. At 1080p on my 1 GB VRAM 560 Ti, it ran like dog-crap - in the 20 frames at tops range; though, it looked great. Even res's b/t 720p and 1080p, it still ran like ass. It ran much better, even at lower res's like 720p - but it looked horrible to me; especially since I do sit quite close to my PC.
I really should test that TEW and throw it at my 4GB 960 sometime soon, since that was one of the games that ran like crap on the 560 Ti. TEW does recommend 4GB VRAM anyways.
-
Updating this thread and my original post here. I got my hands on a GTX 970 really cheap ($100), from someone who just bought a 1080 and was looking to dump the 970 (which he had put in his brand new PC that he just bought a few weeks ago - so this 970's barely been touched).
-
Somebody got lucky. :)
-
Somebody got lucky. :)
Oh, ain't that the truth - hehe! :)
-
The new ATi/AMD card is amazing. At $200ish the 480 is giving nearly the same performance as the GTX 970.
-
I've read that. Good on them. Let's see some better price/performance competition get going here. We need it.
Edit: Hmm . . . I may have spoken too soon.
http://asidcast.com/amd-screws-up-as-rx-480-fails-pci-e-specifications-what-does-this-mean-for-gamers/
-
I want Nvidia to have better competition, but I've never been able to trust anything AMD makes.
-
I've had plenty of AMD stuff and it's always treated me fine. Just never quite seems to be 100% up to par. Was really hoping this would get them up to speed, even though I was super bummed because I just bought an R9 390 not long ago at all. Hopefully this gets worked out, because I agree that nvidia needs more and better competition.
-
Never was an AMD/ATI guy. Always was tempted by them b/c of their bang-for-buck value often tops NVidia.
But, was always hesitant b/c of issues w/ artifacts on certain cards before, their drivers could be hit or miss (never had major driver issues w/ NVidia), and/or some other issue crops up (i.e. now see newest PCI-E controversy)
But, NVidia always seems to find a way to beat them performance-wise at some point (when I need them to) and I'm so used to NVidia, I just keep going NVidia.
We need AMD, though - we need someone to try to compete to keep trying to force NVidia's prices to avoid skyrocketing. :P
-
Nvidia to pay GTX 970 owners $30 (http://videocardz.com/62720/nvidia-settles-class-action-lawsuit-over-geforce-gtx-970-controversy)
-
Got a new monitor up and running here.
Samsung U28E590D 4K TN-panel monitor.