Jump to content

Wayne Tai

Member
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wayne Tai

  1. On 3/23/2019 at 2:01 PM, GamerDude said:

    IF OP plays at 1080P @60Hz, then yeah, the CPU would prolly be a bottleneck .....but what I don't get is, why all this CPU bottleneck questions here and in other forums I go to. I don't think a 'balanced' system is written in stone, or a target that one should be strive for when building a PC system. There's always something that is a bottleneck, plus one MUST make allowances for future upgrades.

     

    I had an i7 4770K + GTX1080 system, shifted the GTX1080 to my HTPC rig and got an RTX2080 Ti. All the games I'd played with the 4770K + RTX2080 Ti rig ran at easily 80fps to well above 100fps (at max ingame setting @3440x1440P). Some games, like Strange Brigade, ran at 130fps to 200fps easy....was my CPU a bottleneck? Most likely, but did that make games unplayable? Far from it! I've since sold off the RTX and a VEGA II sits in its place......@1440P, max out ingame setting + AA and stress the RTX2080 Ti, then the CPU bottleneck becomes less to no issue.

    I'll be playing at 1440p.. 2080 ti is not cheap and I don't want to spend so much just for a 5 - 10% increase in FPS.

     

  2. I'm thinking of upgrading my graphic card to improve my gaming experience.. my goal is to be able to run Odyssey at the highest setting / frame-rate on a 1440p monitor..

     

    I'm currently using a GTX 1080 ROG strix ..If I upgrade to RTX 2080ti, I'm concerned I won't see a huge improvement if my CPU becomes a bottleneck. 

  3. 15 hours ago, ilostmyjello said:

    So I have a gtx 970 with an i7 4790k

    if it helps at all I have two in sli

    i wanted to know if it will still be a good card for gaming.

    my priorities are to be able to play any new game that comes out at least 60fps, and I don’t care if it’s not on ultra settings. So will this be a good 1080p card to run most games at 60fps at any setting for a decent amount of time?

    The trouble with GTX 970 is the 3.5G V ram which is not quite enough for modern titles.. I ran into a lot of frame drop issues because of it and it's frustrating.. having 2 cards in SLI won't help. 

     

    I sold my 2 GTX 970 2 years ago and upgraded to a single GTX 1080.. It was one of the best upgrade decision..  Games run smoother .. have a higher min. fps and more stable in general. 

     

    You might want to wait for GPU price to come down though,

  4. 7 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

    There isn't a "best". It depends on many factors. 

     

    I'd say 1440p is currently the best as there are a lot of 144Hz options out there. Even when 4K 120Hz+ becomes readily available, the fact that 4K is so hard to run will likely keep 1440p the better option for a while. That's just my personal preference though.

    I suppose you're right..  I have some doubts as to whether my GPU can take advantage of the higher pixel count in 4K. Right now I'm playing Assassin's creed which is fairly hard to run. Technology seems to be slowing down in the GPU department which is a sad thing.

  5. Is 1440p still the best resolution for playing triple A games?

     

    I have a non G-sync (I use v-sync) 1440p 60hz monitor and I'm thinking what my next upgrade should be.

     

    Should I go for a higher refresh rate 1440p or a 4K panel? I'm not sure if my GTX 1080 can handle 4K and still churn out 100+ frames per sec. 

  6. Help please .. I have a decent gaming set up but yet I have trouble maintaining 60 fps on this old title playing at 1440p.

     

    Many have suggested turning PhyX off which I've tried.I have done that but I'm still having frame dips every 30 secs or so to low 40 fps..  it makes the game really unplayable. 

     

    In game both my GPU usage is only approx 30%, sometimes lower and none of my CPU core is near 100% so there is not CPU bottleneck. 

     

    Specs:

    i7-5820k at 4.2Ghz and Asus GTX 1080 ROG Strix in SLI (stock), 

    Windows 10 DX12

     

     

  7. 11 hours ago, MysticalRainXIV said:

    could always enable 4k supersampling haha. Disabling SLI doesnt turn off one of the cards, just disables using them in tandem in games afaik. If you want to save power, unplug one

    But if I only have 1 monitor and I turn off SLI, the 2nd GPU will be in idle no?

     

    I don't want pull out the cards because the RGB effect lok great on my set-up :D

  8. I upgraded to 2 Asus GTX 1080 ROG Strix recently and I run them on SLI. 

     

    Since i have a 1440p 60 fps monitor, it's overkill for most of the games I'm playing - I'm planning to upgrade to the Asus PG279Q with 1440p and 165 Hz refresh rate but that won't happen until august. 

     

    If I am playing less demanding games, will it do any good to disable SLI for now? 

     

    Another to ask the question is:

    If I have 1 GPU at 100% load vs 2 GPUs at 50% load .. which one consumes more power? I usually cap my frame rates at 60 anyway. 

     

     

  9. On 5/31/2017 at 0:24 AM, Mick Naughty said:

    So use ddu with the system up like normal. Then take out the bottom card and plug the monitor in the top card and start up like normal. 

    I put 2 cards back, enabled SLI, disable SLI again and then charge the display port connector to the top card. Now it's working.. thanks for your reply though.

  10. I encountered a strange problem after upgrading to Asus GTX 1080 ROG strix recently.. 

     

    Since I installed the cards on my Asus X99-A motherboard, the display is coming from the bottom PCIE x8 slot instead of the default x16 slot (the one closer to the CPU)

     

    It doesn't matter if I switch the cards,  the display would still come from x8 slot instead of x16. 

     

    Is there a way to fix this? I am okay with having the x8 slot as the primary GPU but I just can't figure out why that is the case.. 

  11. I'm using the stock SLI bridge that came with the X99-A Asus motherboard. One area of my rig that I think I can upgrade to make it look better overall is the SLI bridge, but they seem to be quite expensive considering it is just a cable. Apart from the physical appearance, are there any other benefits of using after-market SLI bridges? 

  12. I need a new budget-friendly laptop purely for gaming and media consumption. I already have a rig so I don't need anything too crazy - this is just for my GF to use when she comes over. 

     

    Preference:

    GPU - GTX 950m or should I wait for GTX 1050Ti?

    Storage - SSD is a must!

    Processor - Skylake / Kabylake preferred

    Ram - 8GB

    Display - 1080p

     

    Looking at a budget of around 1,000 USD exclude shipping, with decent built quality of course. Thanks in advance for your recommendations.

     

  13. 2 minutes ago, Redsun20 said:

    NVME for the boot. Even with the theoretical double transfer speed of raid 0 over sata 3, it is still way slower than PCI-E based storage. Also, if one of your raid 0 SSD dies, you would probably still want your computer to boot and have critical data

    That makes complete sense. I can't wait for the new Samsung 960 Evo.

  14. Hi LTT,

     

    Question: If you have a pair of Sata based SSD in Raid 0 and an NVME SSD from Samsung, which one would you use for OS and which one to store games?

     

    storage capacity out of the equation.. just looking to maximize game performance and start up time.

     

     

  15. On 5/6/2016 at 11:06 PM, TeeTwo said:

    Keeping the RAID volume wont do anything to boot times, as the BIOS will recognize that the OS will only be on the PCI-E SSD, and will as such only read from that.

    So I was about to order my Intel 750 series SSD then I read some conflicting reviews about PCIE SSDs. Some people say that it takes longer to boot? Will the newer samsung 950 be a better option?

     

    What do you think of this set up?

     

    Boot Drive : Samsung 950 Pro 500 GB

    Games : Samsung 850 Pro 256 GB x 2 (Raid 0)

  16. 2 minutes ago, TeeTwo said:

    The 400Gb Intel 750 PCI-E SSD have approx. 2.2Gb/s read speed, so its a huge improvement in speed compared to the RAID 0 setup.

    Oh, and press the "Quote" button if you want to reply, as they also recieve a notification.

    Thanks for your information

     

    2.2 Gb/s is very enticing. I wonder what it will do to games loading time.

     

    Can I keep my samsung pros in raid 0? since I am not using them as boot device, it should affect boot time right? 

     

     

×