🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/16/2015 4:44 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:52:25 -0400, DMP <nom...@nodomain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2015 2:12 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
>>> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like there's about a 10% performance difference between a 980 and an 970.  There's about a 25% difference between a 970 and 960... and just to compare even the 960 is about 5x faster than my 275. :)
>>> See the links in my earlier post in thread about the 970 stuttering
>>> after the first 3.5GB being used.  Most people just compare framerate
>>> numbers on benchmarks between cards and think that's the only thing to
>>> consider.
>>>
>>> Just randomly pulling a recent RPG for a look, Dragon Age Inquisition
>>> seems to be good for about 55 frames per second with a GTX980 at
>>> 1080p.  I think this means your video card would produce a slideshow
>>> at less than 10fps :)
>>>
>>> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/dragon_age_inquisition_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html
>>>
>>> Investing the extra bucks to build a machine right, that far exceeds
>>> what current gen consoles can do, will provide many years of gaming
>>> without upgrades.  Skimping and running shitty equipment will just
>>> lead to regrets when running modern games.
>>   Thanks to all who replied; I think I'm going to go with the one of the
>> X99's and a 980; 16GB of mem and an Asrock mobo; 250 SSD and 2 TB WD
>> Black. I have an 28 Samsung UHD, so I'm all set there. I went to GPUboss
>> and did compare the CPU & GPU; I must admit I was impressed with how
>> close the performance of the GTX970 was with the 980 though.
>>
>> Right now, my i7 920 that's o'clocked to 3.65 or something like that is
>> choking on DA:Inquisition, but the PC only came with 6GB of 1333MHz ram.
>> I updated the videocard once to a GTX770 which is the only upgrade I've
>> done since I bought the PC 5 1/2 yrs ago. It's being passed on to a
>> non-gamer who will get plenty of use out of the system because under a
>> lighter load it runs flawlessly. Perhaps adding memory would help, but
>> I'm entitled to new. :-D
>>
>> Diane
>>
> I think you'll find that the new Haswell-e chips benefit your gaming
> in ways that defy specs on paper.  I don't have DA:Inquisition, but
> Battlefield 4, Watch_Dogs, and some of the other games that came out
> in the last year or two started really taxing my CPU (which was an
> i7-965, no slouch of a quad core in its day).  It would run old games
> fine, but start running hot and the cooler getting loud.  I have a
> i7-5930k now, and its really nice to have on some of these CPU
> intensive games. Runs them so smoothly, so cool and quiet.  I never
> see my CPU temp go over about 30C with air cooling.  So, the
> clockspeeds of chips alone do not tell the whole story.
>
> The one thing I would suggest if you wanted to get more bang for the
> buck, just get a large regular HD for your primary.  The reason is
> that unless you reboot 25 times per day, your gaming hobby will not
> benefit from the SSD purchase and 250GB is small for a drive these
> days.
>
> I have 2TB (C) and 3TB (D) drives.  I have installed next to nothing
> on the C drive except some dev tools.  This means ALL my applications,
> data, and games  have been going on the D drive, yet my C drive
> currently has about 250GB already used.  This is because so many
> Windows apps will simply tend to use that drive, the documents folder,
> appdata and so forth by default, so it won't be long until you wish
> you had more than 250GB.
>
> Don't get me wrong, SSDs are nice but 1TB ones are still pricey, and
> most of the PC sellers gouge even further on pricing.  I just put an
> SSD in one of my other machines to replace an aging 7200rpm drive, but
> part of that was because the old drive was kind of crappy and
> extremely noisy.
>
> Remember that by having a very large drive and using only a portion of
> the space, things like rebooting are still blazing fast (traditional
> HDs get slower as they get closer to max capacity, while SSDs get
> slower with time due to the number of writes that slowly damage the
> memory over time).
>
>
I like your suggestions with regard to solid state. I didn't think about 
how often I would need it's speed. It wouldn't be that often...I looked 
at my primary drive that's a WD500GB and I've got 340GB left and that's 
after 5 1/2 years. But you are right about reboots. I generally don't 
shut the PC off after it's on in the morning, so the concept of a speedy 
"C" is nice, but in my case, not necessity.

The 1TB & 2TB WD Blacks would suit me fine and save a few dollars in the 
process. Thanks for your helpful post.

D.