While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Trolling, being trolled, getting banned, yelling at mods, getting perma banned, making new accounts, and still trolling this site since 2004 =D
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
There wasn't a hardware change in the reference RX 480. What happened was that AMD intentionally broke PowerTune for reviews, allowing cards to burn more power than the 150 W TDP, as a way to cheat at reviews. Then after the reviews were up, AMD posted a driver update to fix it.
I recommend nvidia. It has good driver support as well, and now their new cards have better support for VR and 4k resolutions.
Nvidia is normally the better top end, and AMD goes for value at the mid range. Their new cards are competing with the 970 for better value.
The last i heard there was a problem with R480 and drawing too much power causing problems with old mobos, but supposedly a driver config fixed that. Something worth checking out.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
If its a hardware change it most likely be a pin configuration change, since its using half the pins of what older cards that require more power normally use.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
Trolling, being trolled, getting banned, yelling at mods, getting perma banned, making new accounts, and still trolling this site since 2004 =D
Just fyi Origin was founded by some that left Alien ware after the dell buyout. They are also insanely overpriced . You could find a custom local shop that would build and warranty you a great sytem with most of the same components exept for the cooling but an equaly efective water cooling system for a lot less money. Unless your in a great hurry the new gtx 1060s will be out soon and have close to the power of the 980gtx. Just fyi if you have to have it built at least look around some more as thats a lot of money theat they are charging you for the name origin. Im not saying they wont build you a great system its just that origin and falcon charge a lot just for the name.
I recommend nvidia. It has good driver support as well, and now their new cards have better support for VR and 4k resolutions.
Nvidia is normally the better top end, and AMD goes for value at the mid range. Their new cards are competing with the 970 for better value.
The last i heard there was a problem with R480 and drawing too much power causing problems with old mobos, but supposedly a driver config fixed that. Something worth checking out.
lol you know the 1070 and 1080 isn't compatible with HTC VIve right?
also, the power draw problem was less of a problem than overblown out of proportion as several nvidia cards have done the same thing but technically worse.
Also they have only released their budget cards, none of their high end gaming stuff yet.
OHHH and under vulkan with async compute on a RX 480 competes with a 1080 in DOOM benchmarks at least, but i mean thats a non comparison i guess because not many games support it yet.
Both Vendors make great cards and actually last i heard nvidia was having a lot more driver problems than AMD was.. soooooo
Edit - The point of this post is that both vendors have strengths and weaknesses and fanoboing 1 brand to slander and spread misinformation about another is stupid.
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
If its a hardware change it most likely be a pin configuration change, since its using half the pins of what older cards that require more power normally use.
I didn't think there was any hardware change. I was just trying to confirm - and it was confirmed, there was none.
That doesn't mean I think the 480 is a bad card or that AMD is any worse than nVidia - both have pros and cons depending on your budget
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
Trolling, being trolled, getting banned, yelling at mods, getting perma banned, making new accounts, and still trolling this site since 2004 =D
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
I have honestly never had a HDD or SSD die on me, well sorry the first SSD i ever owned an OCZ something was DOA so it never worked, but outside of that... never had an issue on a drive dying.
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
How do you know that excessive writes is what killed the drive? If I fry a memory module, can I claim that excessive writes was the culprit for that, too?
For a consumer to wear out an SSD from excessive writes, you have to do something severely wrong. Of course, the sort of person to push playing MMORPGs off of a huge ramdisk is just the sort of person to do something severely wrong.
64 GB of memory is quite the waste of money in a gaming rig. It's cheaper than it used to be, but still well over $200.
Also you can get 3 TB on a top end Xeon E7 system. Just think how much you could run out of ramdisks at the same time that way. </sarcasm>
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
How many sectors do you figure your Intel has, you know, as overprovisioned spares? The number is probably somewhere in the tens of millions. You know, before it actually impacts your usage on the drive.
You have... how many hard drives and SSDs, and only seen 1 premature failure across all of them. You should go buy a lottery ticket.
And you paid how much per GB for that RAM? And you have to wait how many minutes every time you want to restore your RAM Drive, every time the computer reboots?
Really...
I won't argue that a RAM Drive isn't faster than an SSD - it is really fast. It's also really inconvenient, really expensive, and really impractical for most people.
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
How many sectors do you figure your Intel has, you know, as overprovisioned spares? The number is probably somewhere in the tens of millions. You know, before it actually impacts your usage on the drive.
You have... how many hard drives and SSDs, and only seen 1 premature failure across all of them. You should go buy a lottery ticket.
And you paid how much per GB for that RAM? And you have to wait how many minutes every time you want to restore your RAM Drive, every time the computer reboots?
Really...
I won't argue that a RAM Drive isn't faster than an SSD - it is really fast. It's also really inconvenient, really expensive, and really impractical for most people.
We've both made fair points and even agreed on some of them. Just trying to help the guy out, he's already WAAAAAAAY overbudgeting by not just ordering parts of newegg and building his own machine, so if he's got money to waste, as I do, it might just be something to look into lol.
Trolling, being trolled, getting banned, yelling at mods, getting perma banned, making new accounts, and still trolling this site since 2004 =D
Skip the 500 gig SSD and get a 128. All you want it for is the OS, move all your files, pagefile, etc. on to an oldskewl spinny drive to avoid rewrite death. If you want, you can add a separate SSD for games you might think would benefit from it, but most really don't give much of a boost if any. RAM would be a better consideration, 32 gigs is great, but if you can get a board with the option, go for 64, that way you can create ramdisks if you really want performance, without taking away froom the base system/all of windoze bloatware in the background.
Ridiculous. Moving from a standard mechanical drive to good SSD will drastically reduce your load times for gaming. It's definitely a worthwhile investment whereas going from 16GB to 32GB RAM will make no difference whatsoever for the foreseeable future when it comes to PC gaming.
You've obviously never used a ramdisk. Puts your SSD option to shame in a big way. True, takes time to load, then to save, but all the time between startup and shutdown of what you're playing makes an SSD feel like the mechanical drive you move against. Also, RAM is less likely to die from being rewritten to than any SSD, is cheaper to replace if it does, and you're not losing an entire HDD full of data. Sure an SSD will beat out a mechanical drive on load times, but it's not going to last half as long with current tech either under the same stresses that we use mechanical drives for.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times? How do you figure they will last half as long?
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
When was the last time you had an SSD die on you because you rewrote on it too many times?
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
How many sectors do you figure your Intel has, you know, as overprovisioned spares? The number is probably somewhere in the tens of millions. You know, before it actually impacts your usage on the drive.
You have... how many hard drives and SSDs, and only seen 1 premature failure across all of them. You should go buy a lottery ticket.
And you paid how much per GB for that RAM? And you have to wait how many minutes every time you want to restore your RAM Drive, every time the computer reboots?
Really...
I won't argue that a RAM Drive isn't faster than an SSD - it is really fast. It's also really inconvenient, really expensive, and really impractical for most people.
We've both made fair points and even agreed on some of them. Just trying to help the guy out, he's already WAAAAAAAY overbudgeting by not just ordering parts of newegg and building his own machine, so if he's got money to waste, as I do, it might just be something to look into lol.
I actually can't disagree on anything you said there. Well put.
Don't you have any local companies in your area that will put the system together for you?
The money you're talking about spending will buy you a high end system. A small business in your area should be able supply you with the components you want and put it together for you for about $150
$2500 usd should easily get you a I7 6700 system with a GTX 1080
Want to know what makes a Ram disk even better? An SSD. Even 750GB SSD is not that expensive anymore. As a person with 2 500GB SSDs, I highly recommend atleast 500GB.
Really - SSD size comes down to what you have left in your budget.
If you ~know~ you are going to need a data drive, go ahead and get one. Until you get into the really big capacity drives (4+T), the price doesn't vary that much, it's going to be somewhere between $80-150US. These are easy to add in later on if you need more as well, so I wouldn't get too worried about going too small.
You need the case, PSU, RAM, all the standard stuff. That doesn't change too much. You settle on a CPU, and then a motherboard.
And then the money you have left over - you balance that between your GPU selection and your SSD size. Get the best GPU you can and the biggest SSD you can with the money you got. I would prioritize the GPU over SSD size, but I would never prioritize the GPU over the SSD entirely. I honestly would rather go with integrated graphics than to go without the SSD.
If your doing something like pairing a $350 i7 with a $150 video card, you probably should re-examine your build. My rough rule of thumb is that you should be willing to spend at least as much on your GPU as you do your CPU, and if you aren't, you should downsize/reselect the CPU to allocate more money to the GPU.
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
There wasn't a hardware change in the reference RX 480. What happened was that AMD intentionally broke PowerTune for reviews, allowing cards to burn more power than the 150 W TDP, as a way to cheat at reviews. Then after the reviews were up, AMD posted a driver update to fix it.
Funny but there was 0 change in performance, and supposed "issue" was fixed.
I recommend nvidia. It has good driver support as well, and now their new cards have better support for VR and 4k resolutions.
Nvidia
is normally the better top end, and AMD goes for value at the mid
range. Their new cards are competing with the 970 for better value.
The
last i heard there was a problem with R480 and drawing too much power
causing problems with old mobos, but supposedly a driver config fixed
that. Something worth checking out.
You now have "compatibility mode" for 10+ years old motherboards which doesnt comply with todays standards.
And NVidia doesnt have "better VR support", quite the opposite since display ports on new carts arent compatible with HMDs.
While its not a bad idea to get the 480, its probably best to make sure your getting one thats been fixed in hardware, rather than rely on the temporary software fix thats currently being used, particularly as the hardware fix means that the card will have better performance over one thats fixed via software patch.
I wasn't aware there was a hardware change in the 480
There wasn't a hardware change in the reference RX 480. What happened was that AMD intentionally broke PowerTune for reviews, allowing cards to burn more power than the 150 W TDP, as a way to cheat at reviews. Then after the reviews were up, AMD posted a driver update to fix it.
Funny but there was 0 change in performance, and supposed "issue" was fixed.
Well, to be honest about it - they didn't really change anything. They added a switch, that is off by default, that lets you voluntarily choose to conform to standards. And then they rolled that out with some pretty routine driver optimizations. So the two pretty much offset, if you decided to check the box.
The interesting part is that they wouldn't check the box for you - they intentionally violated it for such a small gain. AMD has a lot riding on this, and I don't necessarily think the 480 is a bad card, but I have to admit that does put a bad taste in my mouth.
Kinda like the 970 3.5/4 thing - it didn't ~really~ matter, but it still wasn't exactly kosher either.
I wouldn't want to see things like that become precedent just because they can get away with it. So I'm glad some whistleblowers spoke up and made a stink about it - in both illustrations.
The difference was really few W and they rerouted that to 6 pin connector and thats about it, mountain made out of molehill for something NVidia has been doing for years but somehow all those crusaders dont care about that lol
The difference was really few W and they rerouted that to 6 pin connector and thats about it, mountain made out of molehill for something NVidia has been doing for years but somehow all those crusaders dont care about that lol
All it shows is that AMD isn't any better than Nvidia when it comes to things like ethics.
The difference was really few W and they rerouted that to 6 pin connector and thats about it, mountain made out of molehill for something NVidia has been doing for years but somehow all those crusaders dont care about that lol
All it shows is that AMD isn't any better than Nvidia when it comes to things like ethics.
What ethics. There wasnt an issue to start with, it was blown out of proportions by few "tech sites" and tech illiterate NVidia fanbois as i have nicely demonstrated.
Or you mean ethics of those crusaders who are suddenly nowehere to be seen or heard since "issue" was "fixed" but still persist on NVidias GPUs?
Comments
Nvidia is normally the better top end, and AMD goes for value at the mid range. Their new cards are competing with the 970 for better value.
The last i heard there was a problem with R480 and drawing too much power causing problems with old mobos, but supposedly a driver config fixed that. Something worth checking out.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Unless your in a great hurry the new gtx 1060s will be out soon and have close to the power of the 980gtx.
Just fyi if you have to have it built at least look around some more as thats a lot of money theat they are charging you for the name origin.
Im not saying they wont build you a great system its just that origin and falcon charge a lot just for the name.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/htc-vive-gtx-1080-1070-compatiblity/
also, the power draw problem was less of a problem than overblown out of proportion as several nvidia cards have done the same thing but technically worse.
Also they have only released their budget cards, none of their high end gaming stuff yet.
OHHH and under vulkan with async compute on a RX 480 competes with a 1080 in DOOM benchmarks at least, but i mean thats a non comparison i guess because not many games support it yet.
Both Vendors make great cards and actually last i heard nvidia was having a lot more driver problems than AMD was.. soooooo
Edit - The point of this post is that both vendors have strengths and weaknesses and fanoboing 1 brand to slander and spread misinformation about another is stupid.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
I smell a lot of BS in this post.
That doesn't mean I think the 480 is a bad card or that AMD is any worse than nVidia - both have pros and cons depending on your budget
2 years ago. Want the RMA #? =P Got an Intel 160GB G2 that is already showing 137 reallocated sectors and it's not that old either.
How do you figure they will last half as long?
Considering the info above, and the only mechanical drives I've had die went well past their 5 year marks, I was being kind.
And are you going to get a RAM drive big enough to hold an entire AAA MMO? Those are ... large.
And? with 64 gigs of RAM, and my largest game topping out just over 28 gigs with addons, I do just fine thank you.
I have honestly never had a HDD or SSD die on me, well sorry the first SSD i ever owned an OCZ something was DOA so it never worked, but outside of that... never had an issue on a drive dying.
Ram drives arent realistic for average users.
For a consumer to wear out an SSD from excessive writes, you have to do something severely wrong. Of course, the sort of person to push playing MMORPGs off of a huge ramdisk is just the sort of person to do something severely wrong.
64 GB of memory is quite the waste of money in a gaming rig. It's cheaper than it used to be, but still well over $200.
Also you can get 3 TB on a top end Xeon E7 system. Just think how much you could run out of ramdisks at the same time that way. </sarcasm>
http://ark.intel.com/products/93791/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8893-v4-60M-Cache-3_20-GHz
You have... how many hard drives and SSDs, and only seen 1 premature failure across all of them. You should go buy a lottery ticket.
And you paid how much per GB for that RAM? And you have to wait how many minutes every time you want to restore your RAM Drive, every time the computer reboots?
Really...
I won't argue that a RAM Drive isn't faster than an SSD - it is really fast. It's also really inconvenient, really expensive, and really impractical for most people.
Don't you have any local companies in your area that will put the system together for you?
The money you're talking about spending will buy you a high end system. A small business in your area should be able supply you with the components you want and put it together for you for about $150
$2500 usd should easily get you a I7 6700 system with a GTX 1080
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If you ~know~ you are going to need a data drive, go ahead and get one. Until you get into the really big capacity drives (4+T), the price doesn't vary that much, it's going to be somewhere between $80-150US. These are easy to add in later on if you need more as well, so I wouldn't get too worried about going too small.
You need the case, PSU, RAM, all the standard stuff. That doesn't change too much.
You settle on a CPU, and then a motherboard.
And then the money you have left over - you balance that between your GPU selection and your SSD size. Get the best GPU you can and the biggest SSD you can with the money you got. I would prioritize the GPU over SSD size, but I would never prioritize the GPU over the SSD entirely. I honestly would rather go with integrated graphics than to go without the SSD.
If your doing something like pairing a $350 i7 with a $150 video card, you probably should re-examine your build. My rough rule of thumb is that you should be willing to spend at least as much on your GPU as you do your CPU, and if you aren't, you should downsize/reselect the CPU to allocate more money to the GPU.
You now have "compatibility mode" for 10+ years old motherboards which doesnt comply with todays standards.
And NVidia doesnt have "better VR support", quite the opposite since display ports on new carts arent compatible with HMDs.
The interesting part is that they wouldn't check the box for you - they intentionally violated it for such a small gain. AMD has a lot riding on this, and I don't necessarily think the 480 is a bad card, but I have to admit that does put a bad taste in my mouth.
Kinda like the 970 3.5/4 thing - it didn't ~really~ matter, but it still wasn't exactly kosher either.
I wouldn't want to see things like that become precedent just because they can get away with it. So I'm glad some whistleblowers spoke up and made a stink about it - in both illustrations.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Or you mean ethics of those crusaders who are suddenly nowehere to be seen or heard since "issue" was "fixed" but still persist on NVidias GPUs?