• PC Building V3 - Complain about RAM prices here
    818 replies, posted
That feel when you know your 1080 TI was just delivered, and you're still stuck at work... Not that I can just jump right in anyway. Gotta grab some dust-off and find the time to transfer to the new case. Got a full tower because my old Mid is just not big enough for a 1080 TI. Best grab a replacement fan too. The one on my CPU cooler is starting to make noise. So looked into overclocking a bit. The 5ghz 8700Ks at Silicon Lottery are said to run that speed with 1.4 voltage, but I thought it was dangerous to breach 1.35 volts... Though the same guy who said that reccomended clocking to 4.7ghz instead for a more stable system. Any opinions on that? Never overclocked before.
While I have no personal experience, a YouTuber/streamer I watch has a delidded SL 8700k that's stable and solid at 5.1GHz. Never seen it give him any problems.
Can you speak from fact and experience? The last two pages have been a non-stop barrage of falsities and bad opinions.
Bad opinions? Of course I can speak from experience. I once had computers with Duron, Athlon XP and Athlon X2 processors. Switched and never went back. Plus, I don't like the color red very much, so that factors in too. Plus, Nvidia has all the perks and stuff in games, like PhysX, which is also helpful for 3D animation stuff. I also own a G-Sync monitor, and I absolutely love it. Not going back at this point.
Athlon XP and X2 where when AMD was at the peak of its game, literally crushing Intel in everything. But that was over a decade ago, neither AMD or Intel even use the same architectures as they did back then. Nobody is making you install red LEDs and shit my dude, the brand color of the parts doesn't literally infest your computer (Unless you get like, a GeForce FE card, or Radeon SE card). Nvidia makes fine products right now, in the past they've made some stinkers though, as always you should find what works best for the money right now (which is likely going to be Nvidia) - but be wary of stuff like PhysX and G-Sync, since that vendor lock-in is going to bite you if AMD ever releases something that much better than Nvidia.
everything you've mentioned is completely antiquated though. a lot changes with technology in a single year let alone 10+.
G-Sync has competition in FreeSync (Which is cheaper and supportable by any device using DisplayPort, IE: Xbox) and PhysX is all but dead due to it being proprietary. No 3D animation suites use it either; it's far better to use OpenCL and other Compute methods than rely on something not everyone can use.
I literally haven't heard PhysX mentioned in any games within the past 5 years. Also, basing your opinion of AMD off of their processors from 2005 doesn't seem to make very much sense. They've changed a lot in those 13 years.
FWIW, OpenCL and SPIR-V are in weird places right now. AMD has sort of dropped mainline support of OpenCL, since it's at some point going to be moved into Vulkan (and hence, SPIR-V) - so it's really complicated right now. I've gotta be honest, CUDA is a much more mature, and stable compute environment and I can't blame anyone for choosing it over OpenCL/ROCm right now. Unless you're wizard level compsci genius who eats $100 programming textbooks for breakfast.
Whatever is best at the time. Hardline brand loyalism is for idiots.
I literally just look at what gives the best cost to performance ratio. I'm not trying to spend a metric fuckton and get negligible performance increases. I play World of Warcraft for crying out loud, it can basically run on a potato. Except Dalaran. Dalaran is framerate hell...
Fry's Electronics |
It's because PhysX is end of life. Warframe ditched the PhysX based particle system they had and replaced it with a platform independent in house solution which performs better and works across nVidia, AMD, and consoles because of it.
I talked with the Silicon Lottery guys for a while when they were first getting started, they're cool dudes. Their rated overclocks are just quick IBT tests, so by no means a guaranteed stable overclock. They also test them a bit on the high end for voltage, but it's all about how much you're willing to risk. Realistically running at 1.4v is just going to degrade the life of the CPU, likely still lasting longer than it's reasonable lifespan as a high end gaming CPU. They also don't take the time to tweak an overclock to potentially get that 5ghz stable at a lower voltage. Really the speeds on their site should just be treated as binning "tiers"
I've made a bit of a jump into the more modern GPU's by ordering a GTX 1050 Ti, making my GTX 960 obsolete. But I've heard it's possible to run both cards at the same time. I've heard about using the older card for mining, physx calculations, video encoding and the sort. But it doesn't sound like there is much of a performance boost. Is it recommended to simply keep the older card just for that little added boost or should I just store it as a back up?
I hate to say it but as far as I can tell, the jump from a 960 to a 1050 Ti is so small, performance-wise, that it might as well be within margin of error. In some applications the 1050 Ti is actually slower. http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1050-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-960/3649vs3165
Most 35W+ chips are socketed. Less of them now cause of gaming 'ultrabooks' but still common. If you get another laptop with the same socket and good enough cooling/power delivery you could upgrade it with that i7. Though if they tell you "35W Max" you better believe it, I put a 45W chip in a PC with a 35W cooling solution and I could barely keep the bastard under 100C. I'd just sell it, someone else will upgrade their bottom barrel CPU with that. Given the sharpie your computer probably got that chip post-sale too. The RAM should fetch a decent price too.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/sppd9J the RAM situation isn't ideal (i'll probably end up doubling that myself as this is a gift from someone else but trying to keep it relatively restrained budget wise). i'm very very partial to intel vs AMD so i'd prefer to stay on the intel side, but if there's any place to either shave some cost or gain performance for same cost i'll take it
Fry's Electronics Official Weekly and Daily Sale Ads s l i c k d e a l s l i c
I guess I should have done a bit more research. Last I looked at the 1050 a few months back I was reading that it was an improvement over the 960 but now I'm seeing it's basically a 960 with VR support? Does better for the most part but falls behind in a couple areas somehow? I don't really understand how that works exactly, but I was also under the impression that the 1050 was 3 years younger than the 960. Googling it now reveals it's barely a year younger. So, for those of you looking into upgrades RESEARCH RESEARCH RESEARCH. I just bought a $200 card for no reason basically.
Always look into real-world usage benchmarks. Doesn't matter how many CUDA cores and GB of VRAM you have if it doesn't perform well in the applications you want.
That's kind of what I was focusing on sadly. My GTX 960 is a 2GB M which works fine but I was hoping the 4GB Ti would be at least a bit better. Wider range of game support and what have you. Hard to believe a newer GPU would perform so poorly. On the bright side though it's not a downgrade. From what I've read on it these past couple of days, it's basically the affordable 960. But apparently a 970 would have been a better upgrade.
The rule of thumb for Nvidia GPUs (which I think has held for several generations now) is that a card of a new generation will be about as powerful as the previous generation's card in one performance tier up. So, for example, a 970 is going to be about as powerful as a 1060, and the 1080 Ti is about as powerful as the previous generation's Titan. You jumped up one generation, but you dropped a performance tier, leaving you without any net performance gain. Of course, that's a very rough rule of thumb.
Another route you could always look at with older cards (if yours supports it and you have the PCIe space) would be S:LI Not only would this be cheaper than buying an equivalent single card in most cases (since you already own one card), but you don't have to go through the hassle of selling your old card to recoup costs
I really, really don't think SLI is worth it these days, especially since support for it in games seems to actually be worsening somehow.
https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=11g-p4-6796-kr 1080Ti's going for $779. Not too bad. Looks like things might finally be calming down.
Just in time for the MSRPs of the 1100 series to be 30% higher than the 1000 series'.
So, basically I've given up on Vega at this point (prohibitively rare and overpriced right now), and have decided to go back to Nvidia with either a 1080 or 1070ti. I just have a few questions, since I'd wager a good number of you have had experience with the 1080 at least. Which card would net better price to performance, 1070ti or 1080? Which partner company would you guys most strongly recommend for Nvidia? Is getting a card with a cheaper cooler and then adding a better aftermarket one worth it? Would I be better off waiting for the 11XX release before buying? If so, based on past events, would I be better off buying a 10XX card when the price drops, or spending more on the cutting-edge 11XX card at launch?
EVGA, Asus, stay away from everyone else since RMA sucks. If you need a card now, get a card now. Nvidia is in no hurry to compete with themselves in the high end. Buying new gen cards is basically always the better option, FWIW. (Unless you're on Linux).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.