chopdok

Because once the reviews came in and showed that Vega 64 is not the performance monster everyone was expecting, but mostly matches a GPU from 1.5 years ago, people stopped caring for Vega. Nobody really cares about Vega 64 at this point, aside from hardcore AMD fans and tech enthusiasts. Compare it to the famous nVidia GTX 970 VRAM blunder - 970 was insanely popular, people were talking about it all the time. So of course many people were pissed - myself included - that 970 turned out to be less than everyone thought it is.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardwareluxx.de%2Fcommunity%2Ff12%2Fam4-mainboard-vrm-liste-1155146.html&edit-text=&act=url According to that chart - MSI and Asus B350s have the best VRMs.

I would lean towards Ryzen - for the sake of longevity and upgrade potential. 1151 is a socket that will be phased out after Coffee Lake. Coffee Lake itself is just another refresh of Skylake. So, there is not that much of upgrade potential for you if you go for KL i5. AM4 is a brand new platform. It has its downsides - the BIOS for most AM4 motherboards is rough around the edges, and DDR4 compatibility leaves a lot to be desired. But you will have better upgrade options in the long run vs 1151.

80$ for Ivy Bridge i5 is not a bad deal. Its definitely better than G4560 KL Pentium, which is the sub-100$ CPU of choice these days. The problem will be motherboard. 1155 is old socket, your choice would be limited, and even then - older motherboard design means you will give up on some stuff, like USB 3.1 Type-C, m.2 that can work in x4 PCI-E mode, and such - those features were only found on very high end motherboards at the time 1155 was relevant, and even then, not on every board. What will your PC be used for?

The game's physics engine works with a constant deltaT, set based on the forced refresh rate. It means it forces V-Sync - there is literally no options in game to turn it off, or at least change the buffering, which is set to double buffering. On 144hz, since its almost impossible to maintain 144fps constantly on that turd - it means playing at 72fps. Only solution is to force Vsync off, which causes the physics engine to spaz every time it exceeds 80fps. In addition, G-Sync folk are screwed, since G-Sync mandates V-Sync disabled. By default, it overrides it - which causes all sorts of issues for G-Sync users even if they don't wanna disable the game's Vsync. If you wanna force triple-buffering - you are screwed. If you wanna limit your FPS through RTSS for smooth gameplay - you are screwed. This is beyond retarded. Especially since Bethesda promised "framerates won't be limited in any way on a PC". For those of you you had the "I can't get away from the termina" bug - yeah, its caused by that. In addition, FPS tanks in the big city. Had 1 crash when fast travelling, hasn't repeated itself, so Ill assume its anomally. i5 and GTX 970 rig. Had tons of AI bugs, pathfinding bugs, AI in general is retarded.

Hype, hype never changes. Popularity doesn't mean a good game. If it was so, Minecraft is the best game ever made. But while its good, its certainly isn't the best. In terms of story, main and side-quests - Witcher 3 wins, hands down. Fallout 4 characters are stale and one-dimensional. Open world is also better in W3. Technical execution - not even funny. The fact that Fallout 4 bugs out constantly if you exceed 80fps is pathetic. I don't care how much the poor developers would get no vacations - you don't release a game that forces 144hz monitor users to reduce their refresh rate to accomodate your shitty engine. Not to mention other performance issues, random FPS drops and animation glitches. W3 had performance problems on launch, and even now, its problematic for some - but goddamit, its simply not justified in case of Fallout 4. If the game is a resource hog, it must at least look like its putting all those clock cycles its gobbling up to some use. In Fallout 4 - the textures look like shit, there are no shadows cast from 3/4 of the light sources, animations look like shit, the AI is beyond retarded. There is no justification for crappy performance, other than "Bethesda used their old engine and saved money". W3 was a bitch to run on release, but at least - it looked damn good, so it was understandable. I refuse to accept and let the shitty performance of F4 slide. If your game looks like it was made 3 years ago - it should have the hardware requirements of a game made 3 years ago. Period. With all that said - Bethesda did manage to improve the shooting mechanics greatly. Combat is actually fun now. Or, it can be fun when enemies don't act retarded. Dialogue system is meh - charisma checks are horribly done, dialogue wheel - because apparently, every game is now taking that questionable approach to dialogue from Mass Effect - doesn't really works well for F4. Skill system was streamlined, which is good - old skills didn't really made a lot of sense for FPS game. VATS actually works without spazzing. New crit system is interesting. Where Fallout 4 does shine - crafting system. Great weapon modifications, great settlement building. Really, a high point for the game. Random junk is now usefull. Overall - Fallout 4 is a good game, but the execution is just awfull. The only real advantage it has over W3 is more replay value, and the fact that its not a damn another fantasy RPG in a market dominated by fantasy games. So, IMO, Witcher 3 beats F4 by far. But doesn't mean F4 is awfull, its just means W3 is that good. EDIT : Before people jump in and scream "Fallout 4 runs fine for me" - get to the big city. Then we will talk. Put at least 20 hours into the game, like I did - you will see all the shit coming through every hole.

R9 290.

If you use it for 1080p - don't bother with overclocking the VRAM - bandwith not an issue for 970 in 1080p. Leaving VRAM at stock will allow you to reach slightly higher GPU core clocks usually.

And of course, the R9 280 will be better in the long run than GTX 960, with lesser fillrates. Yeah, because having 3GB automatically means your GPU can deliver good performance when those 3GB are stuffed full of data.

http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/ignore_jpg_scale_medium/159/1590344/2849489-2160920414-http-.jpg GTX 960 beats R9 280X in GTA 5. So please, do tell me how the 3 GB is "better in the long run", and how "R9 280X is way more future proof". Here you have a game, GTA 5, that is very much VRAM intensive. So, where is the mighty R9 that beats the GTX due to having more VRAM and higher VRAM bandwith? Ah, right, its actually BS and nVidia's architecture is more efficient.

Its ok. Just make sure you read the fine print. Actual scams, like stolen keys or fake keys on G2A are extremely rare. But quite often, those "sick deals" are for keys that are region locked, keys that are legit, but intended for low-income countries. And they are locked, and sometimes the game itself only comes with language packs for that particular region. So read thoroughly.

You won't have any issues at 1080p or 1440p. GPU wise, game works well with nVidia GPUs, and once AMD release a properly optimised driver for it - current AMD driver that is optimised for GTA 5 is a beta versios - AMD GPU users will be ok too. CPU - as long as you have i5 or i7, 3th gen and newer, you are settled. AMD 8-cores do alright too. 6-cores might need some overclocking.

All the game settings on Very High. FXAA On, MSAA/TXAA off. Extended sliders set to 50%. Reported VRAM usage of 3067 MB.

VHQ - Very High Quality.

How so? R9 295 and 970 SLI have almost identical minimal FPS, which is a far more important metric. The average FPS, especially at these levels of performance, don't matter that much. I would even go and say that if the minimal FPS is the same, then higher average FPS actually means less consistent FPS overall.