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 Mustangace

  • Title
  • Birthday 1947-10-24

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Burien, Washington
  • Interests
    Chess, War Thunder, movies/tv series and genealogy.
  • Biography
    USPS Retired after 34 years service, 3 years in the US Army (Oct 1968 to Oct 1970). Have five children from two ex wives. Happily sharing an apartment with my oldest daughter from my second ex wife.

    Played a lot of over-the-board and correspondence chess from 1972 to 1982. Placed 4th in the 4th United States Correspondence Chess Championship in the early '80s and first in the 1979 Northwest Chess Correspondence Championship.
  • Occupation
    USPS Retired


  • CPU
    Core i7 940 @ 2.93GHz
  • Motherboard
    DELL Inc. 0x501H
  • RAM
    6GB DDR 3
  • GPU
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 4GB
  • Case
    XPS 435T
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 Pro 256GB SSD
  • PSU
    600W EVGA 600B
  • Display(s)
    23" ASUS Widescreen HD Monitor
  • Cooling
  • Keyboard
    Logitech K800 Wireless
  • Mouse
    Logitech G503
  • Sound
    Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 Pro x64

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. Don't know if it has something to do your laptop or the GTX 1050 not supported for fast sync, but it is an NVidia technology. Did you open the NVidia Control Panel and scroll down all the way in the Manage 3D Settings "I would like to use the following 3D settings:" window to find Vertical sync? Mine gives me these options (I have a GTX 1080 Ti): Off On Adaptive Adaptive (half refresh rate) Fast If you see these options but there is no Fast option I would assume that your version of a GTX 1050 can't use it. You might do a Google search about it, should you not have it listed.
  2. The i5 8600K is only about $85 more at NewEgg. Amazon should have similar pricing. I would definitely go with that if I was on a restricted budget.
  3. Pairing an i3 8350K with an RTX 2080 is like going to a job interview wearing sneakers and a suit. Will not impress your prospective boss. Ok, some people actually do that, but it's usually unwise. Of course, I suppose you could upgrade your CPU at a later point should you find out that it is actually holding you back. Personally, I tend to be proactive, going with what I think would be a good fit of both CPU and GPU. Yes, don't skimp. The i3 8350K has 4 cores, no threads and the i5 8600K has 6 cores, no threads.
  4. I don't see any of the LTT/NewEgg deals at NewEgg, either via LTT link or the link to specific products. I was also disappointed to not see the EVA 850 SuperNova G2 power supply listed above nor at NewEgg for the $99.99, as mentioned in the LTT video. Do we literally have to wait for Friday? I ask because many stores have their Black Friday events running all week. Perhaps that's why I'm confused?
  5. Yes, they do - the 6800k, 6850k, 6900k and 6950x. All X99 motherboards, those needed for the Broadwell-e processors, do quad. Yeah, I spent a lot of time thinking about this and I've decided on the MSI Gaming Pro Carbon for my next computer. It has the features I need and want without extras I wouldn't use, and doesn't cost a fortune like the MSI Godlike Gaming Carbon and ASUS Rampage V Edition 10, two really good extreme motherboards.
  6. There's no simple answer to this question. Some decide based on what they need while others decide based on what they want. What processor one buys is really an individual decision. And regarding your question about newer/better processors coming later - well, one can always wait, but them one is always waiting for the next best thing. But again, that's an individual decision. For those who mostly do gaming and not much else, an i5 6600k would be all they need. If they want more freedom with multitasking and slightly better performance in some games, they might go i7 6700k. For those who want an X99 processor and think price to performance is the best way to decide, well they will most likely go with a 6800k. Perhaps they want the 2 extra cores with hyper-threading and the extra PCIe lanes and the quad channel memory capability. Extra PCIe lanes help for SLI while having lanes left for M.2 SSD usage at the same time. Four channel memory, it appears, is not too much faster than two channel that the Z170/Skylake platform uses, so it's not a compelling reason to go X99. For those who favor performance much more than cost, well they would go with the 6900k. Many of these power users may need all 8 cores for video editing and rendering, or for any other task that can use all extra cores (for example, I have a chess program that will use as many cores as I can through at it to analyze best game play). Paying extra for such a processor can save a power use a ton of time. Also, some power uses will purchase a high end processor more for the experience of it than personal need. So, what is important is to figure out what type of computer user you are and go with what you think is best. There is no right or wrong answer here. If money is a big factor but you still want the X99 platform for more cores, or whatever reason, the i7 6800k might be a perfect fit for you. Especially, if you think you might have buyer's remorse spending a $1000 for the 6900k. But if performance is more important than the money and you won't regret the cost, the 6900k is certainly a much better choice than the top dog, 6950X at $1700 - in my opinion anyway. Hope you enjoy whatever path you choose.
  7. You may not know why but others requested it, which is why it was made. Besides, I find it interesting that one can use other quality parts along with a 6700K cpu and GTX 1070 gpu, and all for under $1700, the current cost of the i7 6950X. I thought the video was very interesting. Funny how we can all like computers and still be so different in mindset...
  8. Well, being on a budget is a good reason to go i3. I'm sure the i3 is a lot better than the old AMD or Intel dual core Pentium processors, but time never stands still. As good as an i3 is as a dual core today, it will struggle with some of the most modern games, should you want to play on very high settings. Of course, if you have no need for games that require more from your cpu, then there is nothing wrong with what you have. No shame in getting what you can on the budget you are on.
  9. Guess you didn't read my last sentence?? Yeah... I kind of think I did realize that, but they are still both dual core. And dual core can bottleneck some games, especially the most modern ones that will use more than just two cores. I would upgrade the cpu before I would touch the gpu.
  10. Personally, that's what I would do - upgrade the cpu first. I was forced, due to HD failure in my i7 system, to use my backup computer with an old AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ dual core cpu to play my favorite game with my GPU from my i7 system, thinking it would work just fine because it was the same video card. No. No, it did not work just fine - the cpu became a bottleneck, making the game almost unplayable even on lowest settings. Now, having said that, I'm sure an Intel i3 Skylake processor is a much better dual core than that old 2005 model AMD Athlon 64 X2. But because of my experience, I just have to go with upgrading the cpu first.
  11. You might try switching to the on-board graphics to see if you still experience the same blank screen issue. If not, then you will have at least narrowed the problem to your graphics card and/or driver, or the cables and/or PCIe slot that affect the card.
  12. This might be better addressed in the NVidia GeForce forums or support section there. https://forums.geforce.com/
  13. I know this might seem silly, but did you tell your monitor what type of cable to accept from the video card while using the integrated graphics from the motherboard connection? It may just be me, but once when I got a new graphics card that connected to my computer via HDMI, instead of DVI, all I got was a blank screen. Then it dawned on me that the monitor might have a setting to recognize the HDMI cable. So, I went back and connected my old monitor so I could get a display screen, and then went through all the settings and found where to tell it to look for an HDMI cable instead of DVI. Just a thought that may help or may not, but wanted to through that out there since you seem to have the problem now with at least 2 of the same video card. Most monitors can recognize the different cable connections but some do not.
  14. My Rig: 2009 Model Dell XPS 435T Cpu: Core i7 940 @ 2.93Ghz GPU: MSI GTX 960 4GB RAM: 6x1GB Triple Channel DDR3 @ 533Mhz per GB or 1066Mhz per channel, CL 7 Score: 2.8 Capable My system also uses only a 256GB SSD, no HD, but doubt that matters.
  15. True. Besides, there are Z97 motherboards out there that can do dual SLI x16 for both video cards (one of the so-called advantages of X99 with i7-5930K and 5960X cpus, since they offer 40 lanes), and do 3 or even 4-way SLI, if one should want to get crazy. Two such Z97 motherboards are the ASRock Z97 Extreme9 and the Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming GT. I'm sure there are more. Anyone interested in this can check out Tom's Hardware article at (not the main point of the article, however, just so you know): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z97-express-three-way-sli-motherboard,3974.html Personally, if I were to go X99 I would go with the 5930K. I don't see any real world advantage to the 5820K over the much more efficient, as you stated, 4790K. The individual cores in the 4790K cpu are much faster than those of the 5820K and it uses less power, plus the hardware is a little cheaper. The 5820K does have two extra cores, but few games take advantage of them and game designers are more likely to take advantage of hyper-threading instead, since that would hit everyone with an i7 of any type. I have picked my parts for a 4790K/Z97 computer and a 5930K/X99. The cost is only about $400 more for the later (would be close to the same for the 5820K, I suppose due to the motherboard I would want for the 4790K - the Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming GT), but in the long run the cheaper 4790K will use less power, as well, and probably do everything I could want any gaming computer to do. With either system I would start out with just one GTX 980 and add the second one later. Of course, I could run two GTX 970s in SLI for just a small amount more than one GTX 980, and could be more than I need for a 4K monitor, should I go that route, I suppose, but running just one GTX 980 first allows me to determine if I need a second one later or not for the games I play. Perhaps one GTX 980 would be enough.