Crt

Been saying this for a while. Most people overlook the very fact that most developers use Gameworks libraries, and AMD will always have a performance hit. Now that the tide has turned, it's AMD that will see a great performance increase which I am excited to see.

But i feel like the rx 480 is a safe bet becaue the AMD has the lead in the DX12 apparently idk what to think anymore 

Driver updates and such will lead to much better performance, like with the 700 series vs. the 200 series.

"RIP RX 480" because a competing card was released that is simultaneously faster and more expensive?  That's not how this works.

1070 or above.
 
I mean, technically, the 1060 would be too but the jump will be very small.

Don and Tom
 
 

Depends on how good your eyesight is. I use no scaling, but I know some people have trouble reading without it. Windows 10 solves a lot of these issues and quite honestly I don't see any reason not to upgrade - it is better than 7 in everything save maybe aesthetics.

but scaling though...

Had this exact monitor a few years back, sold it to a friend though.
It's a great choice for 1440p however I would suggest going full 4K since the price isn't that different anymore.
If you haven't got the money for a 2160 though go for it, it's a great monitor, used it for video editing, no delay at all.
Best of luck!

looks good, what will you be using it for?

It's a good monitor but it's pretty old at this point. If I were you I wouldn't buy a 1440p monitor now. The jump to 2160p isn't much more expensive.

Because for a few hours more or for a few bucks more, the competition on Intel's side has stronger single-core performance.
 
Don't get me wrong, I used to recommend the FX6300, but with games like Rust and other massive map/world games that require the draw distance to be heavily rendered, the single core performance of the AMD chips are just lackluster.
 
For the record my old i5 750 is comparable to the FX 6300, possibly still stronger.

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.
 
If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.
 
Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..
 
Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.
 
For the majority of games, the FX will be fine.  But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money.  Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths.  That is what Intel provides.  You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.
 
I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine.  If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.
My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made.  I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.
 
The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking.  In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum.  I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.
 

Pq 52 is the best hands down. You can get the first one once you talk to that time patroller looking guy standing outside the entrance to the story area. He will give you one. Collect the other 4 from various pq's. Just look in the description. Once you get all 5 turn them into Trunks in the time area. He will give you the legendary super saiyan saga. The first misson was annoying. Just spam super vanishing ball or death ball and kill 15 henchmen and then Frieza. I made sure Bardock was over 80% hp. After that the rest are easy. I advise you get all the masters and their skills. Are you saiyan male or female? Saiyan female go ki and ki blast and male go basic attack and strike supers. I can help you based on your answer. Once you unlock pq 52 just search it and go in as a level 1 and grab the tails of all 3 apes and use ultimate on them when stamina is down. I get 18-22 levels depending on my performance when I was level 1. You can get 70,000 to 100,000 xp on that pq. It's the best.
 
I don't think you're bad at the game. I just think you need to watch other people play and learn from them. I have not played any hackers but that sounds awesome lol. What race are you again? Male or female. I can tell you based on your answer and my experience from the game. I was ranked 54 but I stopped playing ranked till I get all the moves. I have like a couple left now lol. I can help you.

If it was a Nokia the shooter would have been hit by the reflected bullet.

Maybe it's just because I like my folder structure. 

I used to play on a SNES and a Genesis, the Genesis had a lower resolution, but the games were still great.
 
Relatively speaking, even if the resolution is lower and isn't up to the 1080p standard, people will be playing at a distance (from the TV) and will probably not notice any real gains or benefits.
 
There was a video on YT, I can't remember what, but they literally just taped the bottom of the screens on three identical monitors and asked people, non-tech savvy and "tech savvy" people alike if they could see/feel the difference (perhaps its staged because the controller is a dead giveaway?), but the tech-savvy guy on the last test for Assassin's Creed thought that one of them had to be PC because it felt smoother and the other was stuttering or something. In reality they were all PS4s and the guy had the denial face going on. Perhaps it's a placebo effect of tech-savvy people to just hate on consoles for being inferior in specs. I grew up with consoles, PC, and emulators, so I don't have any true biases against one or the other. I only stay on PC because I can use a keyboard and mouse which I believe is better for hand-eye coordination than a console controller.
 
I'm a PC enthusiast myself and I love me some pixels, but if the game is overall an enjoyable experience, then I think people will live.

Well the Genesis and SNES looked very different.
Aladin and Mortal Kombat are great examples.
And I suppose you were talking about this video?
http://www.gamespot.com/videos/reality-check-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-/2300-6423491/
That video was slightly flawed because they didn't say the specs and the settings of the PC.
And they also had AC: Unity in it..
 
But you are making very valid points indeed.

I used to play on a SNES and a Genesis, the Genesis had a lower resolution, but the games were still great.
 
Relatively speaking, even if the resolution is lower and isn't up to the 1080p standard, people will be playing at a distance (from the TV) and will probably not notice any real gains or benefits.
 
There was a video on YT, I can't remember what, but they literally just taped the bottom of the screens on three identical monitors and asked people, non-tech savvy and "tech savvy" people alike if they could see/feel the difference (perhaps its staged because the controller is a dead giveaway?), but the tech-savvy guy on the last test for Assassin's Creed thought that one of them had to be PC because it felt smoother and the other was stuttering or something. In reality they were all PS4s and the guy had the denial face going on. Perhaps it's a placebo effect of tech-savvy people to just hate on consoles for being inferior in specs. I grew up with consoles, PC, and emulators, so I don't have any true biases against one or the other. I only stay on PC because I can use a keyboard and mouse which I believe is better for hand-eye coordination than a console controller.
 
I'm a PC enthusiast myself and I love me some pixels, but if the game is overall an enjoyable experience, then I think people will live.

I use Avast. Have used it for years and it's been a pleasure to use, no issues on my PC.

I use Avast. Have used it for years and it's been a pleasure to use, no issues on my PC.

So the stuff in online storage isn't mine? I don't own the stuff in "online storage"?
 
Cool, then I can't be charged with what I have in online storage, because it isn't "mine".
 
You want to play games? Then I'll play your game, and make my own rules.

Microsoft is getting worse every moment I hear about them on the news.
 
 
It's both. Sempai is also correct due to the lips closing during "n" and opening during "pa" which creates Sempai. It's written as （先輩）せんぱい (Senpai), but ultimately romanization of 先輩 can be Sempai or Senpai.