Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards


About rattacko123

  • Title

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    pls don't add me
  • Steam
    you know the name
  • Origin
  • Battle.net
  • PlayStation Network
    never used this
  • Xbox Live
    you mean windows live?
  • Star Citizen
    u can guess
  • Twitch.tv
  • Twitter
  • Heatware
    more like vaporware
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia, The world, space, milkyway, universe...
  • Interests
    Computer related stuff, youtube, anime trash, I need more hobbies, currently looking into graphics design
  • Biography
    Hoi, this is Rattacko.
    I'm probably the only person who actually gets decent speeds on the NBN.
    I currently have no idea what to do in my life, I guess I'll just go with the flow until I find a nice fishing village.
    I've grown bored of playing video games.
  • Occupation
    Student (as of 2018)


  • CPU
    Intel Core i7 5820k
  • Motherboard
    Asus X99 Deluxe
  • RAM
    32GB DDR4
  • GPU
    Inno3D GTX 1080
  • Case
    Phanteks Enthoo Luxe
  • Storage
    1TB samsung 850 evo (OS), WD velociraptor 1TB, bunch of external hard drives
  • PSU
    750W EVGA G2
  • Display(s)
    Dell P2415Q, ASUS 24 inch 1080p display
  • Cooling
    Be Quiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
  • Keyboard
    Ducky One 711 Special Edition
  • Mouse
    Logitech g502
  • Sound
    ASUS Xonar U7 w/ Sennheiser HD6XX headphones
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 pro
  • PCPartPicker URL

Recent Profile Visitors

3,291 profile views
  1. That might actually work. 1080p @ 4k is better than 1080p @ 1440p. So, for fullscreen games a 4k monitor is fine. One important thing to note is that you must play your games in fullscreen. Windowed (and windowed borderless) games won't scale very well with a 4k monitor. As for non-games, I have very rarely had any scaling issues with applications (on windows 10). For the few applications that don't scale, text is still readable at 24" (at least, compared to 4k 15" on my dell XPS). I would recommend getting the 4k monitor, it's worth the extra cost IMO and you'd be able to watch LTT videos in their native resolution.
  2. I have a 24" 4k monitor with a GTX 1080, and it's pretty great for video editing and light gaming. However, even with a GTX 1080 it's barely able to play modern games at beyond medium settings, so for something like an RX580 you'd definitely want to get something like a 1440p monitor.
  3. There is one manufacturer that I've found: Garmin Garmin was the only e-ink watch I could find, and I happened to find it on some reddit post where some user posted the technical specifications of the pebble time and one of Garmin's models happened to use the same colour e-ink display found on the pebble. EDIT: Amazfit watches with always-on display are another cheaper option that I've found, but I'm not sure if they are comparable to the pebble. Edit 2: Amazfit uses LCD display, so... nope. If you don't mind LCD/OLED, then in terms of software, Samsung's Tizen appears superior to Android Wear, so Samsung is your 2nd best option after Garmin really. Every e-ink watch manufacturer I can think of has been bought by Fitbit (Pebble, Vector smartwatch), so Garmin was the only choice at that time. So, I 'upgraded' my Pebble Steel to a Garmin watch. In terms of battery life, I'm getting more than the pebble (Pebble lasted just under a week, while Garmin lasts greater than a week depending on the model), which is quite good considering how the garmin has all this fitness tracking stuff using up battery power while all the pebble steel had was bluetooth, not to mention that that the Garmin watchface updates every second while the pebble watchface only updated once a minute. Just for looking at notifications, playing/pausing music, and checking the time, the Garmin is pretty much perfect for that. It also happens to have some fitness features if you happen to like that stuff, it's good if you want to keep track of fitness features such as your heart rate and how many steps you've taken but I've rarely used that stuff. In terms of software, the software ecosystem is seriously lacking compared to Pebble's but then again I don't think I ever ended up using any 3rd party apps on my pebble anyway so it doesn't really matter There's only a couple of decent watch-faces you can find on the Garmin, while on pebble there was much more variety from 3rd party developers. The user interface on the Garmin is pretty bad if you want to do anything beyond checking notifications, but it gets the job done. Now, I'm just hoping that a smartwatch manufacturer releases a watch without any of that fitness tracking stuff, because it ends up using too much battery life and adds too much thickness to the watch to be feasible from an aesthetic point of view... but that won't happen since the primary reason most consumers buy these watches are for the fitness features
  4. Or double sided tape Tape them SSDs somewhere. Or, better yet, zip-tie them.
  5. Never tried samsung watches, I'll have to try one some time
  6. The original pebble watch was pretty great (I have the pebble steel), but then they ruined the software experience (I don't want the main feature of my watch to be the calender feature) and added a bunch of fitness bullsh*t. These days, Garmin does get pretty close but the software isn't quite as good as the original pebble v2.0 software (kinda a pain to read notifications on the garmin and the settings menu is confusing as hell).
  7. Good point, I was considering being more conservative with my purchase, but looking at some benchmarks the GTX 1080 ti blows the GTX 1080 out of the water. This will probably be a long term purchase (3+ years), so I better put the extra $200 that the 1080 ti costs to good use right? Thus, I have made my decision, I will buy the 1080 ti sometime next week assuming the 20% off lasts by then (I looked at some other items using the same offer code and it looks like the sale ends on Thursday next week) EDIT: Turns out I need an SSD, so the 1080 ti is just about out of my budget Looks like the 1080 is the best option overall considering my budget, and I don't actually game that much so even though the 1080 ti is the best value choice it may not be the best choice for me.
  8. So, I found a 1080 ti for $930 AUD (around $700 USD) including shipping using some 20% discount offer code http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Inno3D-GeForce-GTX-1080-Ti-11GB-Gaming-Graphics-Video-Card-Twin-x2-GDDR5-4K-VR/172904758989 I recently got a 4k monitor and my GTX 970 can barely handle it at medium settings, so I'll definitely need to upgrade my graphics card before Christmas. So the question is, should I get it? or should I get a GTX 1080? 1080 ti and 1080 seem to be the two best value options at the moment in Australia considering the current state of the GPU market. Considering I'm upgrading from a GTX 970, it seems like the GTX 1080 ti is the best option, what are your thoughts?
  9. It's marketing for the average consumer. The average consumer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between, say HDMI 1.4 and HDMI 2.0 or Displayport 1.2 vs Displayport 1.4. These "4k ready" badges basically just tells whoever is going to buy it that it supports 4k output, of course we computer enthusiasts know what the hardware is capable of without needing some fancy sticker. The R7 260x doesn't support HDMI 2.0, so it actually can't output 4k60 unless you use a displayport monitor. So technically it isn't "4k ready" because it can't be used with 4k TVs, but yes in the loosest possible term you could say it is "4k ready" although nobody would advertise it as such.
  10. Memory bandwidth does make a difference GTX 1060 benefits with memory overclocking with its 128-bit bus No idea about the high end cards, nobody has done any memory overclocking comparisons recently but I would imagine that something like the gtx 1080 would be approaching the limit of its 256-bit memory bus. 16Gbit/s compared 11Gbit/s would have a pretty noticeable difference in performance. AMD cards especially would benefit from better memory speeds due to their poor colour compression.
  11. At ultra, yes the 1080 ti isn't powerful enough, but if you play older games or play on medium/high settings then the 1080 ti can handle 4k60fps easily with its 11GB of VRAM. I have a 4k monitor and my GTX 970 just isn't powerful enough, but it still is possible to play older games. A GTX 1080 would probably be more than good enough for 4k medium settings in recent titles. 16Gbit/s RAM would be great. Currently Nvidia cards with 11Gbit/s are destroying AMD's HBM2 implementation, with 16Gbit/s Nvidia cards AMD would be having a hard time even if HBM3 came out.
  12. For gaming Intel makes sense, but for video editing I'd lean towards AMD because you get cheaper motherboards and 2 extra cores compared to an Intel coffee lake offering. Anyways, I probably wouldn't upgrade your CPU until Intel releases their 10nm CPUs or AMD with their 7nm (which would probably be around late-2018 to early/mid 2019). 4790k is still quite the beast.
  13. I recommend you get the Ryzen 1700. 32GB of RAM is ideal, but RAM is kind of expensive right now so 16GB is probably just enough for premiere. I'd probably get 1700 + b350 mobo + 2x 8GB sticks of ram, then in the future get another 2 8GB sticks.
  14. If I recall correctly the newer versions of Vegas do not support video card acceleration (well they do, but rather poorly). Also if you're using Vegas then AMD is by far the better option (Hawaii based GPUs appear to be the best performers) EDIT: https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/faq-graphics-cards-gpu-acceleration-for-vegas-pro--104614/ Never mind it seems that they fixed that with the new AVC/AAC renderer in vegas 15. Using a higher end Nvidia card may make sense for Vegas. Premiere is a different story however.
  15. Adobe Software is notorious for being poorly optimized, so you won't see much (if any) difference between a 1060 an a 1070 ti in premiere unless you are using a LOT of layers and effects. From what I've heard, for optimal performance all you need is a recent GPU (maxwell or newer) with at least 4GB of VRAM. If you are looking to upgrade something, upgrading the CPU and RAM (RAM especially) is probably your best choice for better performance. Linus made a video about it: No difference between GTX 970 and the highest end Nvidia card for a relatively simple render. Of course for more layers and effects/plugins you will probably find that the higher end cards do end up performing a little bit better, but not by any significant margin that is worth the few hundred dollars spent. A 1060-class GPU is all you need.