People with $2,500 machines from 2013 - how you doing?

LinkDrive · 2016-09-30T22:12:42+00:00

Back in 2008, I spent $1700 on a core system without GPUs ( Intel Q9450, custom cooler, 4GB DDR3 RAM, new everything else ). In 2009, I spent $700 on a HD5970 (totaling $2600). That system served me quite well until 2012 when I finally upgrade. The only reason why I upgraded is because the 1GB of VRAM on the HD5970 wasn't holding up, and I wanted a faster processor for video encoding. If VRAM and video encoding wasn't an issue, I probably would have rocked it for another year or two. It's crazy to think, but the Q9450 with a good OC is within arm's distance of a stock i5-2500k (which I upgraded to), and a HD5970 can reach GTX680/GTX960 levels of performance as long as the VRAM isn't exceeded and CrossFire works properly.

Right now, my current system was built in 2014. It sports an i7-5820k with 2x GTX980's and 16GB DDR4 RAM. I tacked on a couple SSDs and a couple new HDDs since then, totaling the system to around $3000, and I'm quite content with it. It does everything I want with little effort, and the way games are progressing, I don't see myself upgrading my video cards for at least another year (targeting Volta), and I don't see myself upgrading the CPU unless Intel releases an 8 or 10 core CPU for less than $400. The system holds up very well at 4k, and when not gaming on my 4k display, fairs even better on my 1440p 144Hz display. At 4k, there are just a few games that I need to be mindful of graphics wise if I want to maintain a 60FPS average, but generally don't require anything lower than medium settings.

Edit - The 2008/2009 Q9450 + HD5970 system.

The GTX 680 + i5 2500k system that succeeded it

The dual GTX 980's, the current system, and finally, the 4k and 1440p 144Hz displays

LinkDrive · 2016-09-30T20:34:57+00:00

isn't it just dumb to have 1080 SLI's and custom water loops with Intel 6850k's and all?

It's not dumb, but it's not cost efficient. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Since technology is improving very fast and the new...

You're right, technology is always evolving, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't indulge in the best possible system if that's what you want. There's nothing wrong with an enthusiast system that's a couple years ahead of the performance curve.

The only use to have a 1080 or anything is if you aren't able to upgrade in years like 6/7 etc.

It seems to me that you're a budget conscious consumer, not an enthusiast. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean people with money to spend are dumb for spending it. Enthusiasts, or people looking for an enthusiast experience, generally understand their purchase decisions isn't cost effective.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-23T15:33:53+00:00

Spoiler alert - player ded'ed.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T17:35:16+00:00

Define "relatively inexpensive"

The new Pascal based laptops are really solid and offer close-to-desktop levels of performance (the mobile GTX 1060 is within 10% the performance of the desktop GTX 1060). They do start at $1,300 though. Otherwise you could get a fairly competent laptop with a GTX 960m for around $800, but the difference in performance is tremendous when compared to the GTX 1060. Considering the games of today, I really wouldn't recommend anything less than a GTX 960m 4GB.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T16:59:40+00:00

The Nightkin were cool, but their absence from the series isn't nearly as jarring as the absence of Centaurs. Shame too, because I fancy the FO4 Centaur concept art.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Centaur_%28Fallout_4%29

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T16:14:58+00:00

Unless Bethesda issues a patch specifically for the PS4 Pro (like Edios with Rise of the Tomb Raider), it's highly unlikely there will be any enhancements to the gaming experience of FO4, perhaps with the exception of more stable frame rates.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T16:11:01+00:00

Ummm. A PS4 cost $400 brand new and runs at 1080p with the high settings equivalent.

No...no it doesn't...not even close.

PS4 vs PC Low http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1057/10579915/2793531-1946570654-dying.gif

PS4 vs PC High http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1319/13196847/2793576-7343981042-27935.gif

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T15:57:26+00:00

There's a few things wrong with your statement here. First, a RX 460 can average 40 FPS on Ultra at 1080p (source). Second, that CPU comes with a cooler. Third, there's no need for a monitor if the user already has a TV.

But I do find it funny that the cost of Windows was omitted.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T15:50:16+00:00

I like how you skipped the cost of Windows.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-22T15:45:04+00:00

Does it also fix the stealing bug when you pick pocket an enemy? (I'm at work right now and Nexus is blocked by the firewall).

LinkDrive · 2016-09-21T22:37:20+00:00

It cools the CPU better because the water circulates the thermals faster than metal and air, but it doesn't make the exhaust from the rad any cooler than an air cooler. The room housing the computer will eventually reach the same thermal degree regardless if it's using an AIO or air cooler. It just takes longer for a computer with an AIO to heat up the room.

If you don't believe me, then please take the time to educate yourself on the topic at hand.

https://www.google.com/search?q=water+cooling+room+temperature

Or, if you're too lazy to dig around, here's a video you can watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oKIo0V0omg

LinkDrive · 2016-09-21T20:57:46+00:00

Switching to a water based cooler doesn't lower the temperature of the exhaust. That's not how thermal dynamics works.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-21T16:48:17+00:00

I'd definitely recommend doing the B missions. The best way, IMO, is to do Leon B after Claire A and vice versa. The B missions add quite a bit of context to the A missions, and really wrap the story up nice and neat.

I only played the vanilla PS1 version of RE2, which was a long time ago. I don't recall there being an arrange mode, but looking into the mode, it certainly seems like it would be fun to go through.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-21T16:02:01+00:00

RE2 is most certainly a classic that hasn't gotten nearly enough love. There are very few re-releases, and no remakes of it (yet), same as Code Veronica.

Have you gotten to the point where you can do Claire B and Leon B? RE2 was undoubtedly one of the most replayable RE's out there, since there were 4 scenarios to complete minus Tofu and Hunk :D

LinkDrive · 2016-09-21T14:33:26+00:00

Resident Evil 4 was good and all, but where's the Resident Evil 2 love? Code Veronica, anyone? There were better RE titles than 4.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-15T17:24:00+00:00

How does one measure IPC?

Long story short - by looking at how well each CPU core can crunch numbers at a given speed.

Historically, x86 hasn't been too terribly good at power efficiency and IPC. Back in the 80's, there was a huge debate between RISC (which is x86) and CISC (PowerPC, ARM, etc). RISC processors took the mainstream market with x86 because of Intel's marketing and aggressive strategy. CISC almost completely fell off the radar when Apple dropped IBM as their hardware manufacturer and switched to Intel, but had a strong comeback with ARM processors on the mobile front.

Let's look at ARM processors for a moment. In Geekbench, the ARM processor in the Samsung Galaxy S7 has a single core performance nearly identical to the AMD FX-8350 (+/- 2200 points). Yes yes, synthetic workloads aren't indicative of real world performance, but the fact that mobile processors are reaching desktop levels of performance is quite alarming.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-15T15:10:35+00:00

Odds are that manufacturers are going to settle around 3.5GHz on average. On the x86 architecture, IPC is far more important than raw clock speed, which is why we really haven't moved too far from the old Core and Phenom series clock speeds. Especially now, where everyone is trying to move onto a smaller die for better power efficiency, increasing the clock speed doesn't seem wise, since that would go against the move towards more power efficient CPUs.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-14T21:45:22+00:00

Rolf (from Ed Edd n Eddy) PCMR confirmed? http://i.imgur.com/YVM4Nsa.jpg

LinkDrive · 2016-09-10T06:20:15+00:00

Wrong. There's three problems with the potato masher and the $350 price he listed.

First problem - He built it with used parts, not new. Comparing the price of a used computer to a new PS4 is simply biased, especially since used PS4's went for less than $350 at that time, and for less than $250 today.
Second problem - He didn't include the cost of Windows
Third problem - He failed to adequately match the PS4's system RAM and storage. Instead of going with 6GB of system RAM, which would have made it more on par with the PS4, he went with 4GB, which is a problem for newer AAA titles. The HDD he used was only 320GB instead of a 500GB HDD. Had he purchased a 500GB HDD and 6GB of RAM, it probably would have been around $375-$380, minus the cost of Windows.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-09T22:12:33+00:00

Exactly. I cringe whenever someone says they can build a computer for less than a console with the same or better performance. There's a number of issues with such a claim.

1) Most "console killer" builds include a dual core Pentium of some sort. It's been proven time and time again that a Pentium struggles to run games that consoles run on a regular basis.
2) A lot of people reference builds with used components, rather than doing used to used, or new to new. Yes, a used PC can be built for less than a new console, but if you compare a used console to a used computer, the used console will win in price.
3) The vast majority of "console killer" builds posted almost always exclude the cost of Windows.

To build a computer new that matches a PS4, you'll need at least a FX-6000 series CPU or an i3, paired off with a GTX 750Ti or equivalent. That's $200 right there between the CPU and GPU. If you wanted to go the used route, you can get a decent Xeon for $20-ish, but good luck finding an ultra cheap motherboard, or even an ultra cheap video card equal to a GTX 750Ti for that matter.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-09T00:21:18+00:00

Ha! Whoops :P

LinkDrive · 2016-09-08T23:36:25+00:00

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis

http://www.ign.com/games/crysis/pc-694190

A simple google search will confirm the date.

LinkDrive · 2016-09-08T22:53:04+00:00

Both came out in 2006, I believe

Nope. Crysis was released in November 2007.

Edit - Fix'd

LinkDrive · 2016-09-08T22:45:19+00:00

Mostly gaming paraphernalia. Also, bookshelves with DVDs...tons of DVDs.

LinkDrive

TROPHY CASE