Interesting.... Too bad the game will probably be MASSIVE to install. They'll give you a 500GB WD external drive and that will be the install disk. lol
Well, you also have to remember two things:
1. It isn't just about cpu bottlenecking. Part of it is enabling Developer's to make more expansive games. Which we won't see until new games are made (aka, a whiiiile).
2. Mantle is still premature as someone I quoted below said. There are more improvements coming. This just the "Alpha" (my name for it) Mantle update. AMD has emphasized more is to come in terms of performance boosting optimizations.
This. So much this.
Probably well. Mantle also brings HSA and frame latency fixing stuff with it too. Which should be great for frame stuttering on Crossfire setups.
The huge translation (Please remember to read the introduction below):
because of my mishap, there will actually be 2 translated articles in this post, one from May 2013, and one from October 2013. Having 2 articles from a different time should give you an idea of how manufacturers have improved over 3 years (because articles mention the previous year). I apologize in advance for the confusion that this may cause, but I will denote each section as "Article posted in May 2013" and "Article posted in October 2013"
Please use the search function in your browser (Control+F) to find particular brands or models.
And feel free to share this stuff with your friends!
Introduction:
Article posted on May 10th 2013:
If there is an unknown when being recommended and buying a product, it's the reliability of the product. The reputation of the manufacturer is there to reassure us, but from one model to another, the reliability can vary tremendously, and even well known manufacturers are not saved from having slip-ups.
All statistics come from an unnamed large French online store, which provided the statistics to hardware.fr
How is a product declared defective? There are two possibilities. Either a technician will consider through an exchange such as a phone call with a customer shows that the product does not work, or if there is a doubt, the product in question will be tested to validate the failure of said product.
We have to add that these statistics are limited to products sold by this e-vendor, and returns done specifically to said vendor, which is not always the case because people will sometimes return the product to the manufacturer, however this is a minority of the cases.
The reported failure rates concern products sold between April 1st, 2012 and October 1st 2012, for returns created before April 2013,
Each time, we compared the failure rates to those of our preceding article.
The evolution of the failure rates generally forms a flattened U shape, with very high failure rates in the beginning.
All statistics by brand are based on a minimum sample of 500 sold products and statistics by model have a minimum sample rate of 100, with the largest samples being tens of thousands of sales per brand and thousands for specific products.
Although as we like to say in financial domains, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, we publish today the statistics in our disposition. This type of statistic needs to be viewed with a certain distance, especially because part of these products have now become obsolete. However that doesn't discredit the fact that these statistics are informative and allow us to point the finger at products or manufacturers from which we hope to see improvements in the future.
Article posted on October 30th, 2013:
(Only stuff changed from the May article was posted)
The reported failure rates concern products sold between October 1st 2012, and April 1st, 2013 for returns created before October 2013,
*Please note that obviously not all brands of particular components are noted either because of retailer availability, regional availability or sample sizes that are too small for this large French e-vendor*
Compared to the previous period, Gigabyte and Asus do better, Asrock and MSI less. Gigabyte is in an obvious lead, while MSI's number surpasses 3%, which is worrying to say the least. If we look more specifically at LGA 1155 Z77 Express motherboards, here is the ranking we get:
- Gigabyte 1,70%
- ASUS 1,87% - ASRock 1,91% - MSI 3,57%
A high percentage of the high return rate for MSI motherboards is then related to their Z77 models. Of all models here are the 5 most returned ones:
- 5,88% ASUS Rampage IV Extreme
- 5,59% ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP - 4,94% MSI Z77A-G45 - 4,10% ASRock 960GM/U3S3 - 4,09% ASUS P8Z68-V Pro/Gen3
Here then, is the reason for the high overall failure rate of MSI boards, the Z77A-G45, one of their models. Without this one, MSI's average plummets to 2.03% on all Z77 boards and 2.19% for the average of all their boards.
Thankfully this seems resolved because the next period (sales between October 2012 and April 2013), the failure rate of the Z77A-G45 drops down to 1.45%. (Read next article posted right below for more info)
Article posted on October 30th, 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- Gigabyte 1,43% (vs 1,19% year before)
- MSI 1,83% (vs 3,05% year before)
- ASUS 1,86% (vs 1,79% year before)
- ASRock 2,09% (vs 2,09% year before)
MSI considerably improved it's rate compared to the previous year, which had a rate of 2.03%. if you were to exclude one of their main model (the Z77A-G45) which had a failure rate of 4.94%. The manufacturer returns from fourth place to 2nd place, and Gigabyte still leads the pack despite a higher failure rate this year.
If we look more explicitly at the failure rates for LGA 1155 Z77 express motherboards, here is the result:
Asrock obtains the worst score with 3.51%. It's failure rate however,is caused mostly by their Z77 boards because without them, Asrock would get a 2% failure rat.
All models combined, here are the 4 models with higher than 5% return rates :
- 7,05% ASRock 970 Extreme3 - 6,19% MSI X79A-GD45 - 6,08% ASRock 990FX Extreme3 - 6,06% ASRock 970 Pro3
We find 3 AM3+ Asrock motherboards who sandwich an LGA 2011 motherboard from MSI.
Power Supplies:
Article posted on May 10th 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- Cooler Master 0,98% (vs 1,01% year before) - Fortron / FSP Group 0,99% (vs 0,42% year before)
- be quiet! 1,15% (N/A) - Antec 1,23% (vs 1,17% year before)
- Thermaltake 1,98% (vs 2,36% year before)
- Corsair 2,18% (vs 2,30% year before)
- Seasonic 2,36% (vs 2,20% year before)
The duo with the best rankings stays the same, but their placement is inversed, with a notable increase in FSP failure rates. We also notice the entry of be quiet! in 3rd place. Seasonic obtains last place despite a reasonable failure rate.
Here are the 5 models with the highest return rates during the time period:
- 3,64% Corsair Gaming Series GS600
- 3,59% Corsair CX500 V2 - 3,59% Corsair CX600 V2 - 3,39% FSP (Fortron) HEXA 500 - 3,31% Seasonic S12II-520
FSP group takes back the first place it lost during the last article, while Cooler Master goes down in the ranking. Be Quiet improves by one spot, and Cougar enters in last position. Nevertheless none of the rates were catastrophic.
Not a single PSU had more than a 5% return rate during this period, so we will then show the 5 PSUs with the highest return rates:
For the third consecutive period, the ranking stays the same. Kingston keeps it's very low return rate, while we see a small increase in crucial and a small improvement in G. Skill and Corsair failure rates.
Here again, we don't take see any memory kits with over 5% return rates, nevertheless here are the 5 kits with the highest return rates:
Just like the last article we only see corsair models in this ranking, however this time around the models with the highest failure rates are not necessarily the highest end ones (vengeance series).
The expression the "first will be the last" holds true in this case compared to the previous year. Gainward gets the lead, with Sapphire in an obvious last position due mostly in part to their 7870 models, which when removed from the equation reduces Sapphire's failure rate to 2.06%.
Here are the models that had return rates higher than 5%:
-15,76% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 OC Edition 2 GB - 14,29% Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 OC Edition 3 GB - 11,88% Sapphire Radeon HD 6770 1 GB - 11,82% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2 GB - 7,07% ASUS ENGT520 SL/DI/1GD3/V2(LP) - 6,98% ASUS GTX680-DC2O-2GD5 2 GB - 5,80% Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3 GB - 5,32% Gigabyte GeForce GTX 560 Ti OC 1024 MB
Other than the 7870, we see that two other Sapphire models surpassed the 10% mark, of which one 7970 (the 11197-01) and one 6770 (the 11189-10).
If we look at the numbers by specific GPU, we obtain :
- Radeon HD 7850 : 2,69% - Radeon HD 7870 : 12,45% - Radeon HD 7950 : 5,32% - Radeon HD 7970 : 7,24% - GeForce GTX 560 Ti : 1,43% - GeForce GTX 660 Ti : 3,06% - GeForce GTX 670 : 3,42% - GeForce GTX 680 : 2,66%
Certain numbers are very strongly impacted by certain models, which is the case with the 7870s by Sapphire for example. With the 7970, if we exclude the problematic Sapphire model, we get 5.47%
the rate of failure for 7870 lowers considerably, although it's still abnormally high, with sapphire cards still having the problems. In general, we see that GeForce models are more reliable according to this data, notably with an excellent ROF for the GTX 660.
Article posted on October 30th, 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- PNY 0,94% (vs 1,32% before) - MSI 1,38% (vs 1,81% before)
- Gainward 1,61% (vs 1,27% before)
- Zotac 1,70% (N/A) - ASUS 1,81% (vs 1,69% before)
- Gigabyte 1,84% (vs 1,54% before)
- Sapphire 3,15% (vs 3,51% before)
PNY jumps from second to first place, while Sapphire keeps it's last position. We have to however clarify that PNY sales are not often for higher end cards, which are more subject to failure. And as proof that the average ROF doesn't necesarilly give the best idea, the GTX 660 which was the card from PNY with the most returns had a rate of 2.86%
MSI also makes a noteworthy improvement to 2nd place, here are the models that obtained failure rates higher than 5%, there are unfortunately many:
- 12,67% Sapphire Radeon HD 7850
- 7,44% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 OC V2 - 7,41% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 OC V1 - 7,02% Sapphire HD 7950 With Boost (11196-16) - 6,09% ASUS HD7750-DCSL-1GD5 - 5,82% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 V1 - 5,65% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 V2 - 5,30% Gainward GeForce GTX 670
In first place, we don't find the 7870 like we could have imagined from the previous article but the 7850! The Sapphire card apparently suffered from the same problems as the 7870 that we already largely covered. the OC version of the card (7850) is somehow spared and attained 2,39%
The 7870 are still in the high failure ranking however, whether they are the V1 or the V2 that supposedly fixed the issues with the V1. The intruders in this list from Sapphire cards are a fanless Radeon 7750 from Asus and a Gainward 670.
If we take a careful look at the numbers by GPU, we obtain:
- Radeon HD 7850 : 3,74% - Radeon HD 7870 : 5,48% - Radeon HD 7870 XT : 4,25% - Radeon HD 7950 : 5,75% - Radeon HD 7970 : 5,31%
It is quite easy to conclude that AMD based cards are generally less dependable than their GeForce counterparts. Without completely discreting these numbers however, we have to make note of the fact that Sapphire heavily influences on the 7850 and 7870. Without Sapphire, these cards would have a ROF of 1.5% and 1.64%. The opposite holds true for the 7950 and 7970 cards for which we get a higher ROF when we exclude Sapphire cards, however the sample sizes are rather small.
We mixed all formats of hard drives, which means that we were able to add Toshiba to the list despite a rather small amount of 3.5" drives they sold. This Former arrives in 1st position. Of note is the high failure rate jump for Samsung, compared to the lowering in failure for Hitachi.
Here are the 5 discs with the highest failure rates:
- 2,85% WD Caviar Green (WD30EZRX) - 2,71% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 (ST3000DM001) - 1,89% WD Caviar Red (WD30EFRX)
Article posted on October 30th, 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- Seagate 0,95% (vs 1,44% year before)
- Hitachi 1,16% (vs 2,40% year before) - Western 1,19% (vs 1,55% year before) - Toshiba 1,54% (vs 1,15% year before)
Hitachi HGST which was for a long time the definite last place, continues to improves its failure rate ever since it's buyout by Western Digital, but that's in large part due to the the sales of it's high capacity hard drives which significantly lowered (>2TB hard drives). Toshiba sees it's rate decrease, while Seagate improves it's rate which allows it first place. Warning: Unlike others, Toshiba doesn't allow a direct return to the manufacturers (so it's failure rate might actually be considerably lower if it were to allow them)
Only one disk obtains a failure rate higher than 4% during this time period, it's the Seagate constellation ES 2 with a rate of 9.64%. The failure rate is high, however the sample relatively small.
Here are the rates for 2TB hard drives:
- 9,64% Seagate Constellation ES ST2000NM0011 - 3,38% Western Digital Caviar RE4 WD2003FYYS - 2,36% Seagate Barracuda Green ST2000DL003 - 1,45% Western Digital Caviar Black 2 WD2002FAEX - 1,45% Western Digital Red WD20EFRX - 1,38% Seagate SV35 ST2000VX000 - 1,35% Western Digital Green WD20EZRX - 1,12% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST2000DM001 - 1,09% Western Digital AV-GP WD20EURS - 0,96% Western Digital Caviar Green WD20EARX - 0,83% Western Digital RE WD2000FYYZ
And for 3TB hard drives: - 1,99% Western Digital Red WD30EFRX
- 1,48% Western Digital Green WD30EZRX - 1,29% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001
(I have no idea why the 1TB hard drive statistics were not in the article)
SSD:
Article posted on May 10th 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- Samsung 0,05% (vs 0,48% before)
- Plextor 0,16% (N/A) - Intel 0,37% (vs 0,45% before)
- Crucial 1,12% (vs 1,11% before)
- Corsair 1,61% (vs 1,05% before)
- OCZ 6,64% (vs 5,02% before) / 2,92% without Petrol and Octane SATA 2 (vs 3,05% before when Octane and Petrol were not included)
We didn't make any numerical errors with Samsung, which is very impressive. It eclipses the entry of Plextor within the ranking, who also gets a very good score. Be careful however, with it's M3 and M3 Pro because they had a free warranty that allowed returns directly in house, which of course lowered the retailer rates for Plextor. The rate for corsair increased, just like OCZ, which once again ends up dead last.
This rate is in effect strongly affected by two series, the SATA 3 Petrol and the SATA 2 Octane, which are respectively at a 39.79% and 36.13% return rates, a disgrace. Without these two series of OCZ SSDs, their overall rate decreases to 2.92% which still puts them last, but at a much more reasonable return rate (which however still stays inflated by certain series, such as the 7.51% return rate on the Agility 4) while certain other ones fare better (1,89% for the Vertex 3 and 1,46% for the vertex 4).
If we look at models with a higher than 5% return rate, OCZ monopolizes the ranking:
Thankfully OCZ seems to finally be on the right track after their improvement in the next period.
Article posted on October 30th, 2013:
Average Failure rates:
- Samsung 0,28% (vs 0,05% year before)
- Intel 0,63% (vs 0,37% year before)
- Kingston 1,00% (N/A) - Corsair 1,88% (vs 1,61% year before)
- Crucial 2,26% (vs 1,12% year before)
- OCZ 2,27% (vs 6,64% year before)
Samsung keeps the first place spot despite the fact that the previous exceptional return rate is not maintained. We find Intel in second, faithful to it's own parts for it's SSD, while Kingston makes an entry in 3rd place. The failure rate of Crucial doubles, and with barely any difference from the former, OCZ comes in at last place. For OCZ it's failure rate lowers strongly with the Octane SATA 2 which was discontinued, without which OCZ's failure rate would have been 2.92% the previous period (compared to 6.64%.)
When OCZ launched it's vector SSDs, OCZ prided itself by guaranteeing a certain level of reliability, however it shows to be a failure according to these numbers. Even though the sample is not that large, while superior to the 100 samples stated in the introduction, the presence of two capacities of vector SSDs in the rankings validates a problem with the vector. The firmware released in the end of march seems to have fixed a large part of the problems, but the rates stay superior to what we expect of a high end SSD because they are already 3.64 and 3.45%.
Conclusion:
Article posted on May 10th 2013:
Compared to the previous period, return rates evolved as such:
Of note are a decrease in Power Supply and hard drive failure rates, but an increase in SSD and GPU failure rates. The culprits heavily affected these results (name Sapphire GPUs and OCZ SSDs). In the next period things seem to improve for both of those manufacturers due to the disappearance (discontinuation) of problematic series.
We noticed that there was a strong improvement in hard drives, a logical consequence that follows the lowering of failure rates in the industry leaders, Western Digital and Seagate. The SSD failure rates also tumbles, the result of a lowered failure rate for OCZ, now thankfully far from the abysmal failure rates of the Petrol and Octane series.
To end this article, here are the 5 products that had the most important amounts of failure rates for each categories between April and October 2013 (all had minimum samples of 100). These rates will be brought to augment by the next update due to the return rate not being important enough during this time period:
Motherboards:
- 5,22% ASRock 970 Pro3 - 5,03% ASRock Z77 Pro3 - 4,39% ASUS Maximus VI Hero - 4,39% ASUS Rampage IV Extreme - 3,86% ASRock H87M
Graphics cards:
- 10,34% Gigabyte R795WF3-3GD - 9,97% Sapphire HD 7950 With Boost (21196-00) - 5,04% MSI R7970 Twin Frozr 3GD5/OC BE - 4,93% Sapphire Radeon HD 7870 XT With Boost - 4,80% MSI N6200-512D2H/LP AGP - 4,50% MSI N780 TF 3GD5/OC - 4,27% Sapphire Vapor X HD 7970 GHz Edition - 4,19% ASUS GTX670-DC2-2GD5 - 4,06% MSI R7950 Twin Frozr 3GD5/OC BE
Hard Drives:
- 3,44% Toshiba DT01ACA300 3 TB
- 2,31% Western Digital Caviar Green 2 TB WD20EARX - 2,03% WD Black Desktop 4 TB SATA 6Gb/s WD4001FAEX - 1,83% WD Blue SE Desktop 320 GB IDE WD3200AAJB - 1,51% Seagate NAS HDD 3 TB ST3000VN000
Source (all in French of course):
May 10th, 2013 article http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-1/taux-retour-composants-8.html
October 30th, 2013 article http://www.hardware.fr/articles/911-1/taux-retour-composants-9.html
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I will repeat this again in case you have skipped over this: these statistics are limited to products sold by this large French e-vendor, and returns done specifically to said vendor, which is not always the case because people will sometimes return the product to the manufacturer, however this is a minority of the cases. This means that the actual failure rates are likely higher (the exception being Toshiba hard drives, which can only be returned to the retailer).
Edit: ooooooh s**t, just looks like I translated the wrong article. I translated the one posted in May 2013, while there is an article with newer numbers from October 2013. I'll try to update it to the October one when I have the time.
Edit 7: Intro, Motherboard, Power Supply/PSU were all updated to include both articles and proofread.
Edit 8: Memory/RAM and Graphics cards were updated to include both articles and proofread
Edit 9: Whole thing is finally complete, proofread and all after 4 hours straight of formatting and translating :lol:
I look forward to translating another one of these articles next time they post one (probably in a couple months) Although these articles are not definitive proof of the superiority of one brand's reliability over the other because they only encompass retailer return rates and are done in a country with considerably less PC builders (France), they should give people a decent idea of particular components that have very high retailer return rates, and I hope these numbers help you perhaps make a decision in your next purchase.
Notes
-Started from a missed bill payment from the N3 Coalitiom, which "caused sovereignty to drop across the system leaving the station vulnerable to capture."
-N3 Coalition vs Clusterfuck Coalition (CFC)
-CFC (Goonswarm Federation, Razor Alliance, Black Legion and the Initiative) and the Russian Coalition (Solar Fleet, Darkness of Despair and Against ALL Authorities) captured the station.
UPDATE:
The battle has concluded with $284,000 worth of damage. Ok, so my math was wrong when the battle was still going on, oh well. I'm not sure what the final Titan kill count was, but the last time I checked, it was at 57, at that was long before the battle ended. There MAY have been ~70 Titans or so destroyed, I dunno, I'm just guesstimating here. Either way, the battle was crazy, so crazy in fact, that the server crashed.
The battle also made headlines on CBS, FOX News, and other publications. Here's the FOX News article about it:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/28/unpaid-bill-costs-gamer-200000-in-eve-online/
Oh, and EVE is having a PLEX sale. I don't think they can help but tease the battle with this picture found on their Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152162367629394&set=a.77243934393.72638.17614129393&type=1&theater
So, majority of us have installed a new motherboard and run into having to just install our operating system to accommodate the new hardware.
Well, I'm going to share a little trick that I know on how to be able to use the same OS install on the new hardware problem free.
This is something that I use personally and very often in a computer shop environment.
It's much easier to just do this instead of having to backup someones data, move it here, install the os, move it back. That sucks.
WARNING - WARNING
I only recommend this to users who are comfortable troubleshooting.
I have never had an issue with the software itself.
Used this hundreds of times.
Just better to be safe than sorry.
But problems can happen. I don't want to be responsible for someone messing something up.
So please, take caution when trying something like this.
It can always be fixed. Nothing a OS re-install can't repair haha.
WARNING - WARNING
It's a pretty simple .ISO called Paragon Adaptive Restore.
It was a free tool offered by the Paragon Software company up until about 2010 when they started to adapt it into their paid programs only.
I have contacted the company about distributing the software and they had no worries about it since they will offer a download to it if asked
Current Download Link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3gyoaqlx29d6yxw/AADAYBACDOK0by5GVHaAMoJha/Paragon%20Adaptive%20Restore (Updated 7/30/14)
File Size: 154 MB
File Type: ISO Image
Start off by creating the bootable CD.
I personally use the program ImgBurn (http://www.imgburn.com) to create my cd's.
Once the CD is booted, restart the computer and boot to the CD.
Make sure your current motherboard has been REPLACED with the new motherboard.
These are the steps to follow once your new motherboard has been installed.
1. Accept the end user license agreement by checking the box and hitting Accept.
2. Select "Adjust OS"
3. Select the Operating System on the drive.
4. Select which option - I normally choose Adjust the OS automatically.
4.5. I rarely have the use the second option.
5. From here you will see the software injecting and editing the proper drivers.
6. Paragon hasn't changed anything yet. It needs your permission to apply the changes, click Yes, Apply the changes physically.
6.5 After this do not interrupt anything and just restart your computer normally and everything should boot into Windows.
You will need to remove older drivers once in Windows and install your new drivers.
Basically, this should explain some more
Quote from http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1753815/silicon-lottery.html
One of Linus's videos explaining binning processes in component manufacturing should clear things up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B14BiB-Bv3s
The binning process applies to GPUs, RAM and much more which is why we get different variations of the same core such as GK104; GTX 670 & GTX 680. The GTX 680 is just higher binned. The same happens with RAM, 2400 MHz & 2666MHz memory are just higher binned than 1600MHz.
Intel takes advantage of the binning process by offering CPUs such as the 3960X and 3970X. These chips are expected to be able to overclock to higher frequencies than the 3930K as they are almost 'perfect' chips out of the 39xx series which is why Intel charges double the price.
The wafers can't be completely uniform, the manufacturing process can't be 100% uniform. You have to realize we're dealing with some of the smallest scale things in the world. 28nm is 28 *billionths* of a meter. The center to center distance of features of a processor have only around 56 silicon atoms of width between them at that point. (that's center to center, the space in between edge to edge would be fewer than 56 atoms). 22nm is only around 44 Si atoms.
Things are so small that an extra atom in the wrong place can produce different characteristics. It's amazing that we get things as consistent as we do.
Do you even have to the graphics power to make use of that? Because I kind of doubt you would. Also you do realise t his will shorten it's lifespan.
Edit: Yay 2000 posts
Most people don't transfer large files most of the time. Yes, that indeed will be bottlenecked but I don't see how that's much of a problem unless you're doing that kind of stuff very often.
Gonna keep this pretty short, but this giveaway is a video contest that Kingston is running that happens to contain a video made by.... LINUS MEDIA GROUP!
Yay.
TimingContest runs until Tuesday, December 17th, 2013. Winners announced on Wednesday. Prizes:
First Prize: One (1) 256GB HyperX DataTraveler USB 3.0
Second Prize: Two winners will receive One (1) 120GB Kingston SSDNow V300 SSD w/Notebook Installation Kit each Location: Open to US and Canadian residents only.
You can check out the full rules and regulations here: https://www.facebook.com/kingstontechnology/app_179517745580834
You can check out both the behind the scenes and the finished video here:
It's incredibly hazardous to your health. PCIe slots are extremely carcinogenic since they are comprised of solid benzene, and contact with PCIe slots is a leading cause of cancer worldwide.
For more information on the hazards of PCIe slots, go to www.justincaseyouthinkimserious.imnot.com
Presuming you haven't done any of this:
Is your gpu listed in Options | Preferences, Video tab, GPU Acceleration . . .?
When you rendered were you using Sony AVC/MVC? If so, click Customize Template, go to the System tab and click Check GPU. If it says you have a capable card, i.e. it doesn't stay blank, then go back to the Video tab and set Encode mode (at the bottom) to Render using GPU . . .
"Kicking off today is AMD’s annual developer conference, which now goes by the name APU13. There will be several APU/CPU related announcements coming out of the show this week, but we’ll start with what’s likely to be the most interesting for our regular readers: the launch date for AMD’s Kaveri APU."
"First and foremost, AMD has confirmed that Kaveri will be shipping in Q4’13, with a launch/availability date of January 14th, 2014. For those of you keeping track of your calendars, this is the week after CES 2014, with AMD promising further details on the Kaveri launch for CES."
"Second of all, we have confirmation on what the highest shipping APU configuration will be. Kaveri will have up to 4 CPU core (2 modules), which will be based on AMD’s latest revision of their desktop CPU architecture, Steamroller. Meanwhile the GPU will be composed of 8 GCN 1.1 CUs, which would put the SP count at 512 SPs (this would be equivalent to today's desktop Radeon HD 7750). Furthermore AMD is throwing around a floating point performance number – 856 GFLOPS – which thanks to some details found in AMD's footnotes by PCWorld gives us specific clockspeeds and even a product name. A10-7850K CPU clockspeed 3.7GHz, GPU clockspeed 720MHz."
