EndofGameBoss
That's about right.
No lol. That's a good processor and your PSU is more than enough to carry a 770.
No lol. That's a good processor and your PSU is more than enough to carry a 770.
Is there any word about when the 800 series will be released?
lol I run my gtx 660 at max settings and get way more than 30 fps gtfo. But yeah if I was buying today I would get a GTX 770 with 3-4 gb of ram just because it is a good trade off between quality and price since I would rather just upgrade to the next 300-400 dollar card in ~3 years instead of ride out a big ticket card that will have you itching to upgrade a little bit later down the road.
Yeah I'm definitely looking at that one. Basically, I'm in a contest to win SLI Titan Blacks and I've got a good chance of winning I think. If I win, I'm getting an Overlord 120Hz 1440p monitor. If I get 2nd place and only take one home, I'm not sure if I should go for that still or the VG248QE. If I don't win at all (pretty unlikely I think) then I'll probably get the 248QE and just drop some settings on games to hit dat sweet 120fps+
Do you have any experience with AMD CPU's? I'm ordering a CPU today and I'm really thinking about the FX 9370. It's a 8 core processor clocked at 4.4 ghz, but what concerns me is that it's tdp is 220w. That seems ridiculously high to me.
Yeah I like my VG248QE a lot, but you already know that.
I'm not talking about maximums. Sure in lots of games you'll get more than 30 with that, for sure. But, what about truly demanding games? Star Citizen Alpha, Metro: LL, Crysis 3? Your minimum framerates are way more important than the maximums.
I've always bought intel because I have this preconceived notion that they're better for whatever reason. Not sure why. Like, they tend to win in apples-to-apples benchmarks in most single-threaded or dual-threaded applications, with high end AMD processors only marginally winning out in some multi-core professional applications that you probably don't even use. The general consensus among a lot of PC enthusiasts is that you should only buy AMD"s cheapest chips for budget builds, and their super high-end chips for niche professional use. The inbetween area and even professional area is almost entirely intel 4670k, 4770k (i think that's the number? the i7), 4930x, Xeon, and things like those
I really dig AMD's new processors. I built my last rig with a 8350, but that is a 125W processor. I can overclock to like 4.8 ghz, but I normally leave it at the standard 4ghz just because I haven't thrown anything at it that it couldn't handle yet. 220W does seem really high so I can't comment from experience on that. For the money, you can't really beat AMD's quality, they are priced so flipping low for what you get.
Yeah I get stable framerates with everything I play on the GTX 660. I probably haven't played every demanding game though to stress it to the max. Obviously with brand new games that are high in detail you are going to need new hardware to run it perfectly.
Well, I'm looking at your steam library, and it's almost entirely little indie games. Nothing wrong with that, but like, good luck getting a stable 60fps with no dips in modern AAAs. I have a 770 and can't even run modern AAAs at stable 60fps half the time, have to turn settings down to avoid all fps dips.
I would strongly suggest upgrading your CPU, so yea you would need a new mobo. FM2+ sockets only have APU's atm along with the 750k and 760k, which lack a L3 cache. You have plenty of time to upgrade. The good news is that you already have the RAM, PSU, and case, so it's not too much. If you're looking for something on a budget I may suggest something like this. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/s93tnQ
Yeah, that is what I use Steam for mostly since most of that crap just came from bundles. I play plenty of other games outside of the Steam since the only reason I got it in the first place was for Injustice.
What games are you running?!? I actually just upgraded to a 770 yesterday and threw a maxed out Farcry 3, crysis, and skyrim (ENB modded) at the thing and it just smiled and chugged along without a hitch. I actually came to the thread to voice my support for this reason. EDIT: hopping to throw the witcher 2, metro, arma, tomb raider, and hitman absolution at it later today.
Star Citizen only runs on High, I'm GPU locked, and I get frame dips when lots of action happens. Like, people throw around "maxed out" a lot but they don't talk about how much is happening on screen and if they are EVER dropping frames below 60. Titanfall needs some serious settings tweaks to run at 60fps stable and not look like a potato. Fucking Warframe doesn't even hit 120fps consistently on a 770, and that game looks like poop. BF3 I never drop below 100fps, same with BF:Hardline Beta. Skyrim I modded a lot until I was only pushing about 75fps on average then stopped there, Far Cry 3 I have totally maxed and I get frame dips during big action, same thing with FC3: Blood Dragon.
...forgot to ask, what resolution you running at?
1080p
It most likely won't be until Q1 2015
I dominate games all the time that have the Nvidia logo, with an AMD card. I'm a little ignorant on MK9 for PC, but I highly doubt its considered a "challenging" game to run. Unless its highly unoptimized like some other console ports sometimes are.
Not necessarily the case. They could do a really bad job on the optimization for other card. A perfect example of this is Metro 2033. Run like crap on a GTX titan but beautifully on a 7870
I have a very old card(9800gt+) and I've been playing The Witcher 2 on high settings, but I only get like 35 fps lol. I imagine your card should rip right through those games.
Q4 2014/Q1-2 2015, tentatively. They are releasing 1-2 more architecture improvements on the 7 series first, nVidia always milks the hell out of their series before moving on.