• PC Building V3 - Complain about RAM prices here
    818 replies, posted
ASUS has some of the worst customer support known to mankind. Zotac is excellent.
I'll back up ASUS being the worst, but also Zotac is the worst. Buy on Amazon and call them when it breaks.
Yeah, but at least their shit isn't as likely to break.
What's the difference between the 1070ti and 1080 at stock clocks? I might dabble in overclocking eventually, but I don't intend to push past factory spec right out of the box. Longevity is just as important to me as performance, at least when it comes to the high end cards. I can see why someone would want to buff up a 1060 or RX570 right away, if they're wanting to immediately improve their already quite good cost to performance ratio on a mid-end card, but paying more than double what those cost, it makes sense to be a bit more risk-averse.
A bit of a follow up on my situation, my 1050 Ti came in and I swapped my 960 out for it. I've run as many games as I can think of that use a lot of GPU power and have found that those online benchmarks are a bit misleading. The 1050 Ti is giving me much more reliable FPS at 1080p and is running all my games now at max settings. Not all of them deliver at 60FPS but they do deliver 30+ which is a lot better than the 960 ever did for me. Even GTA V is running smoother than I've ever seen at max settings. I'm not sure exactly what the online benchmarks are reporting but they aren't matching my personal tests at all. I've also noticed the 1060 Ti does not require a PSU connection, it just plug and play into the motherboard which is actually quite nice. All in all, I recommend the 1050 Ti. I don't recommend it as a deliberate upgrade from the 960, even though it is an improvement I agree that it's not worth the cost of improvement. I should have just thrown down the extra $50 or so for a 1060 or something.
its 2GB vs 4GB? when i first switched to 1440p lack of vram caused massive performance issues, nowadays games want more than 2GB at 1080p. if you had the money you should have tried to send it back and got a 1060 instead i think
Do you have some numbers on this? I remember a few years back ASUS had a big issue with its triple slot coolers basically being arse and detaching themselves from the chips or whatever. Not trying to say that's representative, but at this point I feel like it's possible to find shit on any AIB.
Real world performance can and often does differ from what raw benchmarks suggest. New architectures tend to be outright better at their job. That being said, if you still have the chance, definitely do go for the 1060. Trust me, the difference will be noticeable.
This is why I like userbenchmark so much, it's a "real-world" bench across tons of different applications, and it gives you the raw bell curves in the data. Bigger sample size = better.
What I've been told outside this forum: 1050 - Esports FHD at 60 1060 - Mainstream FHD at 60, playable VR 1070 - Mainstream QHD at 60, Esports FHD at 120, optimal VR 1080 - Playable mainstream 4K, QHD at 120, Esports FHD at 240 With at least medium settings in each tier. Is this reasonable or wildly inaccurate? Some of it seems over simplified, or seems like it refers to the TI variant instead.
Asus is large enough that small production problems are going to get fixed, and generally they produce good products (good QC) wheras other companies aren't as good about it (even EVGA, with their exploding graphics cards). Either go with a company who has good RMA (EVGA, XFX) or go with one that is too big to fuck up on any scale (Asus).
Granted it runs on fucking anything at reduced settings but I have no issues pulling > 100 FPS in Warframe on ultra at 1440p on my laptop on a 1060 (6GB, ungimped). Destiny 2 runs maxxed at 60, unoptimised indie titles run worse but that's to be expected.
ok so I made some changes (added more ram, switched to M2 SSD), any suggestions? https://pcpartpicker.com/user/lordcrypto/saved/CPh4CJ
Go with a 970 Evo, cheaper, newer, faster. Also I'd go with a 2TB WD Gold, and make sure to buy it directly from the retailer, since otherwise the warranty has a chance to be denied. You can also get Windows 10 Pro for like $45 on Microsoft Software Swap.
assuming you actually posted @Glitchvid , I'm old fashioned but prefer to pay full price for Windows licenses
Yeah, that was weird - posts weren't showing up. GG Garry. Can't go wrong with buying 'legit' licenses I guess. Though I would recommend the 970 over the 960. As for the WD drives, they'll probably honor the warranty, but you're best served if you buy from a WD authorized reseller (So, Newegg directly, or Amazon directly) - and often on Amazon companies will sell the drive for like 10 cents below what Amazon does, so you need to manually select Amazon as your seller.
Wish I could afford to just piss a hundred dollars away like that. Glorious $30 pro keys.
I'll switch it to the 970 and a gold @helifreak , I wouldn't really consider it pissing away money. I work for a place with thousands of end users, and while there's nothing explicitly telling me I can't pirate software for home use, I prefer to not have any issues and just pay for legit
So my five years old GeForce760 croaked in the heatwave yesterday. What do people suggest for a low-budget replacement? How many gigs of vram are the norm to run these days? I've been recommended the 1060 with 4 gigs, is this seen as generally sufficient, or what?
Does W10 Pro let you totally kill deep search with Cortana and all the telemetry/advertising nonsense? I know you can turn most of it off in W10 standard, but it's all registry hacks and major updates keep undoing it.
okay so i switched out from a gold to a blue because i didn't need gold level of performance and blues half as cheap i'm thinking this is pretty much perfect https://pcpartpicker.com/user/lordcrypto/saved/CPh4CJ
Blues are, of course, 5.4K RPM, so if you need to do any file moving or I/O stuff, they'll be insufferable. I'd also highly recommend going Red instead of Blue, since Blues are basically trash tier.
ended up switching back to wd black instead of blue as well as grabbing a cryorig i think i'm happy with this price/performance
what SSD should i go with then to double it? the 850 at 500GB is like 150 vs 100
SATA SSDs are a joke IMHO. 250 GB is fine for an OS disk. WD Golds on Amazon are a better deal than Black drives, effectively same performanc, but Golds have the burn-in test and 5 year warranty. 2TB blacks from non-official resellers ate going to be "new old" stock, so if WD decides not to honor the purchase date and instead use the MFG date, then your fucked.
You can get a 500 GB SATA 860 Evo for $120, bumping up to a 500GB NVMe 960 Evo is over $220. That price bump doesn't seem to be worth the additional performance. Let me know if I'm wrong, because I'm planning to actually use a 500GB 860 in my build.
There isn't really a noticeable difference between PCI-E and SATA like there is between spinning rust and SSD. Purchasing software is piracy?
SATA really wasn't designed with SSDs in mind, NVMe blows it out of the water when it comes to basically any performance metric. Most people don't need more than 250~ GB of SSD storage, and for a ton cheaper you can get 4TB WD Golds for super fucking cheap price/GB - So why compromise and get SATA SSDs when you can just get a zippy ASF NVMe drive and then one or two 4TB HDDs. Speak for yourself, when I went from a 850 Pro to a 950 Pro I was blown the fuck away by how much nicer just doing every day computer shit was (Windows was snappier, so was Chrome, and other programs that write shit to/from disk often).
My plan was to keep my whole games library on my SSD.
I don't really see a reason, modern HDDs move data at about ~200MB/s, so around 1/2 of SATA SSDs. Games generally stream data these days (and are fuckhuge at ~50GiB) - meaning you might have textures load in higher res sooner, but not too much. This is compounded by the fact that SSDs are primarily good at random I/O, latency, and sparse files. HDDs can do sequential files fairly well (still not SSD speeds... but acceptable) - games these days are pretty much always packed into dense sequential files (Since optical media suffers from this limitation too, games have just been packed into dense files for a long time) so SSDs really don't shine the way they do with say - the cluterfuck that is the Windows OS and various applications writing a shitton of places at random times with various queue depths.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.