Help Me Build My PC Catch-All

MannishBoy wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:
Now if they'd just fix the weird "corrupt pointer on one monitor bug" that randomly happens occasionally. That one's been going on for a long time.

That's fair.. happens to me occasionally so I know the one you are talking about.. But that's not to say that Nvidia doesnt have its own share of weird bugs (especially with multi-monitor) I have 2 that happen occasionally as well (about as frequent as the corrupt pointer)

My point is that its disingenuous to say AMD has driver issues and Nvidia does not (especially if you look at release notes in their drivers) Since I would argue they probably have equal amounts of issues with different games and hardware scenarios.

Oh, I agree. I have had weird AMD bugs, but nothing bad enough that I wouldn't buy another AMD if it was the best bang for the buck in my price range.

The bad thing about the cursor bug is that the fix that will work is to turn on pointer trails. But if you turn on pointer trails, you often lose the cursor entirely from some game UI's (like Mechwarrior).

I don't do that to fix it. I just refresh desktop a few times and it fixes it

To ThinJ's dual 6950 experiences:

I own those exact cards now (bought them off ThinJ a while back ) and haven't honestly noticed micro-stuttering, though I am aware of the issue. My rig isn't high-end at all, so I get slow-down due to other factors (I like to up my graphics settings then work down from there until the game is playable, rather than buttery-smooth-- so I get something like 50FPS average in BF4, for example, but most of the settings are turned up to ultra). For the most part I haven't had any major issues with the Crossfire setup, save for some graphics glitches in a BF4 patch (was quickly fixed), or a temporary lack of Crossfire support for a brand new game (Titanfall Beta has to run sans-Crossfire, for example). They were running pretty warm, so I installed Arctic's Accelero Twin Turbo fans and OC'ed the hell out of the cards and they run without a hitch or excess heat (office is noticeably cooler than it used to be), and they're quieter, too. I've never had a major problem with drivers that has rendered any game I've played totally unplayable or even ugly. Like I said, BF4 had some Crossfire issues, but that was on DICE, not AMD, and it was resolved rather quickly.

Would I buy two cards again? probably not. But I think I'm kind of an edge case, as I use my PC both for gaming and art, and Crossfire/SLI is useless in art software-- nothing takes advantage of dual GPUs. Hell-- AMD is practically useless in art software, as programs like Maya or 3DS Max don't run DirectX properly on AMD cards, so no proper Viewport 2.0 or alpha sorting on an AMD GPU. I've also found a lot of CGFX shaders run like sh*t (if at all) and HLSL shaders tend to be programmed with DX in mind rather than OpenGL, so they are kind of a crapshoot as well (lots of floating point differences in the code that DX handles but OGL is a stickler about).

tl;dr. I've had good experiences to counter ThinJ's bad ones with the very same cards, but I don't plan on running a dual-GPU setup (or even AMD, for that matter) in my next build.

Not that this is an argument against anyone else's experiences/knowledge, just my experience/thoughts on running dual GPUs.

So I'm sure there's a software solution out there somewhere and I'm figuring out how to diagnose this stuff myself, but I thought I'd ask folks here first. My system has handled everything like a champ. I've tried out Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim (amongst other games) and everything is absolutely stunning. I'm having one problem, though, with NBA2k14. It's basically a port of the PS3/XBox 360 game. So it's actually quite last gen. But I experience tearing constantly when I play games. With situations like this where's the best place to start? It seems like with games like this that aren't very popular there isn't a lot of movement on a patch or a fix from the community around the game. So I'm wondering if there is some obvious setting that might be the cause of it.

TheGameguru wrote:

I don't do that to fix it. I just refresh desktop a few times and it fixes it

What I meant was to prevent it, you can set cursor trails on (I use low, so it's almost invisible). I can't remember it ever happening after doing that.

DSGamer wrote:

So I'm sure there's a software solution out there somewhere and I'm figuring out how to diagnose this stuff myself, but I thought I'd ask folks here first. My system has handled everything like a champ. I've tried out Bioshock Infinite and Skyrim (amongst other games) and everything is absolutely stunning. I'm having one problem, though, with NBA2k14. It's basically a port of the PS3/XBox 360 game. So it's actually quite last gen. But I experience tearing constantly when I play games. With situations like this where's the best place to start? It seems like with games like this that aren't very popular there isn't a lot of movement on a patch or a fix from the community around the game. So I'm wondering if there is some obvious setting that might be the cause of it.

Maybe check your GPU's settings for a hardware-forced V-sync? You know, the graphics control panel-- there might be something in there about using certain settings or letting the application dictate video settings. Otherwise, I heard that the port of NBA2K14 was complete crap by any standard, so that might just be a thing to deal with, as far as I know. This is assuming there are no V-sync options in the graphics settings of the game itself, though. If you can, turn V-sync on to triple-buffer, that usually nets the best results (at the cost of GPU processing power, which means slower frame-rate, of course).

Yeah if it's a last gen console port it's probably just running at a higher framerate than your monitor can display. Thus, the tearing.

VSync will fix it, though my favorite "fix" for that issue when I was still on 60hz monitors was to just get in the driver profile for whatever game it was and crank up AA/AF until the framerate stayed around or right below 60.

That makes the game look nicer and kills the tearing without some of the weird drawbacks of VSync

Enix wrote:

At this risk of going out on a tangent, can anyone recommend me a shop that will build a PC for me?

I've bought two machines over the years from CyberPower and have had good results both times. Is it cheaper/better to look for something off the shelf so to speak, or is there a custom shop that offers good deals? Or would I be better off finding a friend-of-a-friend to do this?

I'm in the market for a low-to-mid-range gaming machine that'll set me back $800 to $1,000.

Thanks for any leads!

(I'm going to head off the why-don't-you-build-your-own-you-lazy-ass by saying I don't have the time in my day or the space in my house to do it, and my toleration for frustration is at an especially low ebb these days. I wish I could be more Zen about this, and in a parallel life I'd build my own rig but this just ain't happening right now.)

The best thing is to go to your local computer shop. They will be cheaper than CyberPower or the like and you get to support a local business.

To my horror, I discovered 2... cat 5 cables in use in my home network. I know, I know, I am worst at computers (my whole house is wired for 6, i must have had these lying around and forgot to replace them).

Still, it doesn't matter since right now my biggest bottleneck is I/O due to this crappy drive I was using for data. But that's been sorted. New machine is up and rolling and things are actually loading faster off the new machine since the drive in there is so much better.

Thanks for the help, all.

Took me a while, but I've finally got my PC up and running. Not sure what did it. I took everything out and then reinstalled it all. Got it up and going. Thanks for all the prior suggestions; they were much appreciated.

To my horror, I discovered 2... cat 5 cables in use in my home network. I know, I know, I am worst at computers (my whole house is wired for 6, i must have had these lying around and forgot to replace them).

Actually, as long as they're Cat5e, that's all you need for gigabit. Cat6, unfortunately, isn't better. Well, more specifically, it's not enough better. If you want to run 10 gigabit, you want Cat6a. 10gE may work over Cat6, especially over short runs, but you want 6a to be sure.

There was an aborted standard for gigabit that required straight Cat6, which I think is where the idea spread that that's what you need, but it's not true. 5e is enough. I think the failed standard used four Cat6 wires, but the standard that succeeded uses eight wires at 5e level. And then 10 gig needs 6a. (That's probably about as far as we'll go with copper.... after that, you really want fiber.... and you probably want fiber even at 10 gig.)

Now, if those wires you removed were regular Cat5, not E, then you had the same thing that you do with the regular Cat6... it might work, especially over short runs, but it's not certain.

This is a fun article about the 750 Ti.

Edit: Think about it from the perspective of being a kid in high school. You could upgrade the family computer to play games for $150.

That's way under the performance class we usually point people at, but it's a heck of a lot better than onboard video, and it just uses slot power, so you should be able to put it in very small and/or power-constrained computers.

Something we'll have to keep in mind. Someone was looking at a rig for an RV, and I think this card might be just the thing.

Looks like a great card at its price point. I saw also Nvidia refreshed the Titan line

TheGameguru wrote:

Looks like a great card at its price point. I saw also Nvidia refreshed the Titan line

titan Black... same price as the previous titan, with a bump of something like 8-10% and 6GB of Ram on board...

Not sure if that makes sense for anyone to purchase.

JC wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Looks like a great card at its price point. I saw also Nvidia refreshed the Titan line

titan Black... same price as the previous titan, with a bump of something like 8-10% and 6GB of Ram on board...

Not sure if that makes sense for anyone to purchase.

Not sure the original one made sense for many, either, but that's not the point

NVidia's so gimped on compute in this generation that I don't think I'd want to drop that kind of cash on one of their cards. It just bugs me that they're deliberately crippled that way.

Malor wrote:

That's way under the performance class we usually point people at, but it's a heck of a lot better than onboard video, and it just uses slot power, so you should be able to put it in very small and/or power-constrained computers.

Something we'll have to keep in mind. Someone was looking at a rig for an RV, and I think this card might be just the thing.

It would also probably make a damn good HTPC GPU.

So is this supposed to be equivalent to a 660 or 660 ti? (the 750 ti that is)
That is not a bad card at all and should sit close to the 7870, no?

It's not a 1080P card unless you dial everything down. This is more a card for smaller monitors

So is this supposed to be equivalent to a 660 or 660 ti? (the 750 ti that is)
That is not a bad card at all and should sit close to the 7870, no?

Uh, well, I'd need to see more benchmarks, but I think the 270X (which is what the 7870 turned into: it's the same card), is substantially stronger than the 750Ti. The benchmarks in that article were all on low presets. (and medium with Skyrim, which doesn't ask much of the video card, despite looking as good as it does.)

The 270X is somewhat weak at 1920x1080, but you don't have to turn settings down THAT far.

From what I can see, this is the way I'd sum up the graphic card market right now:

1) Onboard video: you can play some games at low resolution, and low settings, more with AMD than with Intel.
2) 750Ti: You can play most games at reasonable resolution, maybe as high as 1080p, but the settings have to be quite low. The card should work on any computer, as long as it has an x16 PCIe slot.
3) 270X: You can play most games at 1080p at medium-ish settings. Needs aux power.
4) 760: Nearly all games will run well at 1080p at high settings, though you might have to dial it back in the really challenging titles. Needs aux power.
5) 770/280X: At 1080p, basically everything will run at ultra settings, maxed out, except for just a tiny number of problem children. At 2560x1440 or 1600, most games still look really good, although you'll usually want to turn off antialiasing. Needs a solid power supply.
6) 290X/780: Even the problem children will run well at 1080p, and just about everything else is gorgeous and smooth at 25x16, even at high antialiasing settings and with lots of full-screen effects. The 290X pulls 300 watts, and is very loud in stock configuration. The 780Ti is "only" 250, and is much quieter, but it costs a fair bit more. Either card will need careful attention to the power supply, especially the 290X.

Checked Moto's and my power supplies and both are only 500w. That will limit the type of video card. I'm thinking of just going with two 256GB SSD's as I can deal with medium settings at 1920x1080 in most games.

Well, you should be able to run a 770.... I'd have to check on the 280X. Can you give us the make/model of the supplies? We can double-check to see how much power they should have available.

Hey folks, I've got a question that I suspect I know the answer to already, but what the hell.

This is my current system:

Q6600 @2.4 ghz
3gb DDR2 800 RAM
GTS 250/ 1gb
650w Corsair power supply

It's a Dell prebuilt from about 2008. It's obviously old, getting slow, and has developed some issues that I can't track down, but suspect are hardware related. Basically, it's getting by (and still running everything I throw at it, surprisingly), but is getting creaky, and I'm having to drop detail settings.

I'm hoping that I'll be able to do a complete system build before the end of the year. The budget will probably be about $750 for it, but I think the only thing I'll be carrying over is the storage drive, and hoping to get an SSD as the system drive.

So the question is, is it worth it to get a new video card now to get some more mileage out of the current system, with the intention of moving the new card into the new system when I build it, or just wait and get everything at once when I build?

So the question is, is it worth it to get a new video card now to get some more mileage out of the current system, with the intention of moving the new card into the new system when I build it, or just wait and get everything at once when I build?

Well, you've got three problems there. They are:

1. Slow CPU
2. Not much RAM
3. Windows XP

Of the three, XP is your biggest problem.

Why? Because XP is limited to 4 gigs of total memory, period. Almost any new graphic card you would buy would come with at least two gigs of video memory. That will come right off the top, masking some of your installed RAM. If you put a 2 gig card in an XP system, you would end up with maybe 1.7 gigs of usable RAM, no matter how much you actually had installed.

And, if you can afford it, you probably really want a four-gig card, and I'm not sure XP could even start with one of those on the system.

So, you'd need a 64-bit OS. But then you've still got your other two problems, memory and CPU.

You MIGHT actually have four gigs of RAM. Might. XP usually hides the upper gig, because it maps system hardware up there, and the gigabyte for your video card has to go up there, too. If you have four real gigs, not just three, then putting Win7 or Win8 on the box makes some sense. If you really do have only three, then it's kinda iffy. It's not worth expanding the memory, because DDR2 is very expensive.... whatever you have, that's what you've got.

Finally, 2.4GHz is pretty slow. A new graphic card will be much faster than what you have, but some games will still give you trouble. The Q6600, however, overclocked like crazy... nearly all could make 3GHz, and some made 3.4. If your motherboard allows you to overclock, then you could really add some legs to that machine... a quadcore 3GHz Core 2 is still pretty fast, and most games will still run pretty well on it. But if it's an actual Dell motherboard, it probably won't allow you to do anything of the sort.

So, in summary: if you have four real gigs of RAM, and you're willing to buy a retail copy of 64-bit Win7 (so that you can transfer it to a later computer... the cheaper OEM copies are locked to the motherboard you first activate them on), then buying a video card might make sense. If you can also overclock your CPU, then it might be a fairly attractive option. But you'll pay a lot extra for retail Win7, so you're paying probably an extra hundred bucks for the privilege of doing the partial upgrade.

I'd tend to suggest just holding off. Replace everything at once. That machine is close to six years old, and it probably wasn't very expensive when you bought it, so I'd say you've gotten your money's worth.

XP must be someone else, I'm running Win7 64. I definitely only have 3 gigs of RAM. Overclocking is maybe an option, but frankly, I'm not convinced that the Dell motherboard will allow it or be much good at it. I'm also a little dubious about the stock cooler being able to handle the extra heat from overclocking, but I could be wrong.

I've definitely gotten my money's worth. It was bought when a power outage caused a surge (through the surge protector) that fried my previous one, but renter's insurance covered it and paid for a replacement. A year or so after I got it, I invested $250 in a new video card and power supply, so total spent on this machine has been $250 plus $50 for the copy of Win7.

Chaz: I agree with Malor, just save up for a bit and do it right. Build yourself something nice from scratch. 6 years is a great run for a Dell.

Well, if you've already got Win7, then with a 650 watt power supply, you're set that way, so you could probably get reasonable mileage out of buying the new card now. It won't be anywhere near as fast as it would be on a new system, but it would be a lot better than a 650.

But, if the machine is giving you overall trouble, it might be best to wait.... if it's got a significant hardware problem, you could potentially damage the new card. The chances of that are quite low, but it would really suck to lose a $250 or $300 card because, say, caps are dying on your motherboard, or your power supply is failing.

EriktheRed wrote:

Chaz: I agree with Malor, just save up for a bit and do it right. Build yourself something nice from scratch. 6 years is a great run for a Dell.

Pretty much this.

Q6600 was a bad ass processor for a long time, but it's starting to fade with it's old age and it's going to bottle neck any fancy new upgrades.

Malor wrote:

It's not worth expanding the memory, because DDR2 is very expensive....

I totally wish we were putting our stockpile of DDR2 RAM up for auction at work because I would buy it. We probably have over 200 gigs of it (80 or 90 some odd computers were replaced last fall with between 2 and 4 gigs each). Company policy requires us to remove the RAM and have it shredded because somebody somewhere with a multi-million dollar piece of equipment might be able to pull a few bytes of data off of it.

Rykin wrote:

I totally wish we were putting our stockpile of DDR2 RAM up for auction at work because I would buy it. We probably have over 200 gigs of it (80 or 90 some odd computers were replaced last fall with between 2 and 4 gigs each). Company policy requires us to remove the RAM and have it shredded because somebody somewhere with a multi-million dollar piece of equipment might be able to pull a few bytes of data off of it.

That post just hurt my heart... so wasteful...