Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

helpme about make me a new pc






Oh about the 1080p resolution, don't worry about it.

For example, my GTX560 runs everything I throw at it on my TV.

Best part is, from my computer's monitor which is 1680x1050, to 1920x1080 - I do not lose any performance at all. I do not think there is more than what... 3-4 frames difference. Not even that sometimes.

I have tried with MoH Warfighter (it's Frostbite 2.0 engine, same as BF3), no performance loss, as well as BF3, and plethora of games like Skyrim, Mass Effect, Supreme Commander (huge battles!), others.

Today modern GPU performance does not depend on the resolution as it used to - it's all the new and complex shading algorithms that eat all the time to calculate, not number of pixels themselves.

So even if you go with something middle range, you're going to run games GREAT...

...unless your CPU is too slow. Then it'll run at same choppy performance regardless of resolution. For example, Far Cry 3 which is unbelivably CPU intensive, runs at exact same number of frames per second on my PC, regardless if I put 800x600 or 1920x1080 resolution.
 
thanks a lot Eudaimonium for your feedback! as you described is soo trusted and it's real.

I've buy from my friend his used Asus 6950 DCII 1gb 1536 shaders for 80€ ,
and it look amazing and great than my x360, i can say that 7970 aren't what i need..
on my pc i have spend 450€ (less than I expected to spend) and is amazing thanks again to lpf.
 
It's not truly a good comparison of modern PC gaming system and a 7 year old console, which had an middle-range hardware to begin with.

Radeon 6950 sounds awesome. It's slightly faster than my GTX560 judging from comparison charts, so you can expect great performance. It's the price-performance ratio that rules here :)

You already bought everything you needed? If not, I would strongly suggest putting up some of the money saved toward a newer CPU, like we talked before.
 
i'll change my config in the future.
maybe whit something like i5-3570k or amd again, and new amd 8k-series vga or the 7970 that i have planner to buy..
now I do not want invest any more money :shhh: dirt3 and saint row work amazing, i need to try fps games.
 
Sure, let us know how it works!

Try Battlefield 3 or Medal of Honor Warfighter. Those games look AMAZING and run really well on a rig such as yours.
 
I just wanted to know if 750Watts could power all that plus a liquid cooler?

I saw budget and liquid cool in the same sentance :D
Its a shame most games haven't adapted to quad cores at a lower clock (*cough cheap AMD's)... if you can find a nice i5 and save some pennies for an SLI bridge than you should be rockin a sweet rig! And since SSDs seem to increase in price exponentially as GB increases you could get some really small SSDs and set up raid to have "one SSD" to get maximum gamer staus!

I thought Kingston was the "king" of ram
 
Last edited:
He already got the rig, Bacon.

Besides, I'd advise against any SSDs (at least for now) and SLI bridges. There was not a single game performance or stability troubleshooting guide that doesn't start with "Disable SLI/Crossfire" as number one tip.

As far as I've collected, SLI is 200% more money for 30% more performance in 20% of games.

You could've bought a GPU that's actually twice as fast with less money and less problems. If you already have the fastest GPU, you don't need two!

SSDs are still too costly for storage space offered. Sacrifising storage space for speed in what is a mass storage unit by design, is ridiculous. When 1TB SSDs don't cost in 4 figures, then we'll talk. For now, you're paying abnormal money for ability to run some stuff faster, with subjectively unacceptable tradeoff for having far fewer stuff to run. Personally, I don't mind stuff loading twice as long if there's 10 times more stuff to store. Also, sheer number of stuff that doesn't load fast enough is still too small to justify such an investment - all games and user software, or almost all, is still designed with HDD speeds in mind and optimized as such. Only OS itself and pro-level software like Photoshop or 3D programs will benefit from SSD, games won't.
 
Are you kidding me? SSDs are awesome, and their price is very reasonable for their stellar performance. At about $1/GB, SSDs are now well within reach of virtually anybody buying computer hardware. Depending on the season, ~$100 buys you a nice 128GB Crucial M4 (they're $130 on Amazon at the moment, but they were as low as $90). You're not going to store your porn or music on them; you're going to store the stuff you want to load and run quickly, and for that SSDs are well worth the price.

All new computers these days should have their system drives (i.e. C:\ on Windows) running on SSDs. The OS won't use all that much space, so the remaining space should contain all your system applications and important programs. Then if you want fast-loading games, etc. you ought to get a second SSD drive for your games and other stuff you'd like to run without waiting. Games are, what, 8GB in size each? You can fit a lot of them on your SSD, and if you need more space, but another SSD for $100. I love how I don't have to wait at all for data to be fetched from the hard drive for maps, or saved games, or even just launching. No waiting for the drive to spin up, no loading pop-up, etc. It's a beautiful sight.

So many people who don't own SSDs just don't understand just how fast they are. It's like how a mortal can't comprehend how heaven would be like. People see the space numbers and think "oh buy I get a few terabytes of space for that price!" Well what really are you going to put on those terabytes? Movies? Porn? Music? That shit doesn't need speed. You could buy buy one low-power 3TB or 5TB drive for that content. Hell, you could store that mundane bulk data on a NAS or something over the network.

Most of that bulk data on regular hard drives lives out its life as just storage. You could just as well burn it to DVD because you will rarely even touch that data. Compare that against the the data and programs you use most often. The data you keep on your SSD is the most important data you have -- the stuff you actually use all the time, not that watched-once shit you have archived on that crappy 2TB Western Digital. You want that stuff loading quickly so that you can access it without wait.

SSDs are orders of magnitude faster than even the fastest hard drives in RAID configurations. I even benched my old Intel SSD I got two years ago versus a RAM-drive I bought prior (ACARD 9010) and the SSD was generally faster. They are simply that good. Some of the giant-cache hybrid hard drives are decent these days, but those are stop-gaps you pay extra for. Get SSDs for stuff your want to load quickly, and buy cheap slow bulk-data drives for your archival media. Segregate your data and you'll have a nice running system.

Remember that SSDs are the most cost effective upgrade for your entire computer, period. They transform 5-year-old laptops from clunky old machines into usable platforms. They obviate the need for superfetching or other tricks that the OS uses to try and make stuff load faster. You don't even need to use sleep or hibernation mode on your laptop anymore, because the OS is almost "instant on". You will feel more performance benefits from an SSD than anything short of bottom-of-the-barrel upgrades like installing more RAM from 256MB.
 
Last edited:
That's still not well fitting into "budget" category now is it?

Sure if you've got extra to spend on PC, 128 GB SSD for System sounds nice. But for now STILL, subjectively, that money better gets saved. It's true, I have not seen SSD in action at all but I'm just going on general feeling here. Games are anywhere between 4GB and 30GB, plus once more that for installation archive which I always keep. Currently back home, I have about 200GB of installations and some 200GB of installed games. And those installed ones simply run well enough for me, disk-wise. I could do with a newer CPU but that's another story.

Guess we'll leave it at that. I'll speak up when I have a chance to see the benefits of SSD for myself.
 
Actually you're saving money because now you're investing your money into hardware that will give you the greatest performance for your buck. The slowest part of every computer is its IO, and with an SSD you're bumping up that performance to huge levels.

The $100 spent on 128GB of SSD will be far more useful than the $100 spent on 1TB. Why? Because all that extra space is really only good for archiving. It's like spending that money on boxes to store your goods -- it doesn't help your system performance. You're not going to fill that 1TB drive up with all games, and if you do, it's a waste of space as you won't play them all.

The 128GB SSD gives you performance across the board, reducing the effects of IO from all kinds of sources, not just what your games need to use. No longer does your system have to cache system files in RAM which need to be reloaded after your game uses up their memory. No longer does your system doing something else interfere with your game because it's causing significant calls to interrupts. This is why I would place the value of an SSD even above processor and video card upgrades: it is simply that significant. Fortunately, they're so cheap now that you don't have to make the choice.

Furthermore, buying an SSD now provides performance benefits now rather than later. Buying a regular, large hard drive, wastes the money you've spent unless you've filled up that drive entirely. You should always wait until you need new space before buying another hard drive because the capacities increase over time. The SSD, on the other hand, provides all its performance benefits out of the package, and if you keep 15% or more space free, continues to provide those benefits for your IO ops.

In the end, the SSD gives your new gaming computer exactly what you buy a new gaming computer for: performance. No new computer should be without an SSD, period.
 
My new pc is for gaming not for office/internet use , a lot of games weigh a lot of Gigabyte.. I also use it for movie.
Now i have a 160Gb @7.2kRPM and it work i'll prob buy a 3Tb (110€) next in the future.
 
Only 160GB? You sure? It's impossible to find a disk that low spaced today. You sure you do not have any weird partitions not recognised by your OS?

I had a friend who kept saying his laptop he just bought is shit and doesn't have any hard drive space, only 50 GB. I was like, what the hell?! I opened up Disk Management and found an unpartitioned space of additional 200 GB and enabled it for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top