Search the Community

Hi comunity Today I just receive this new monitor, an LG 38gl950g and, after an hour of test, the monitor shows a message an it says: Monitor overheating! Shutting Down... The firts thing I do was to install the LG driver but it only allows me control the illumination, I don't know if the monitor fail because of this Edit: now it's every 15 minutes Thanks in advance

Hello forum, I recently build my dad a new 3d rendering workstation, this included a Titan RTX, since he needs lots of VRAM and a 9900K. Over the past couple weeks, the Titan RTX has a weird isssue, while rendering, it ramps up its fans to the max for a few seconds, then goes back to normal again. I checked MSI afterburner, and it showed that the fan speed is 64% at all times, the temperature is quiet high, at 85 degrees celsius. So far I have tried multiple things to cool the thing down, including pointing a nocuta fan straight at it or removing air filtrers, nothing worked. Do you guys have any idea how I can solve this issue? Greetings, Thunderdoge

Okay a whole lot of people say because AMDs DX11 CPU overhead is so bad we should not tell anyone with a "weaker CPU" to use them, sure fine but that clearly only apply to DX11 right? What about people who only play on DX9 games and what about DX10? I just want to know if AMD cards are fine then... (this would be good info for EVERYONE here to know!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_10

I have recently acquired a LG 25UM57 monitor very cheap from a friend. I plan to mount this above my three monitors as an overhead however, my three monitors are not vesa mountable ergo they are on their original stands. I am having a lot of trouble finding a reasonably priced Vesa desktop mount that is able to lift the 21:9 monitor above the three screens (They are ~39cm in height). Any suggestions or is there a large possibility that I will have to mount the screen to the wall?

So many people have been bringing this argument up, but evidence has been mostly correllation. There aren't many R9-390 vs GTX 970 with multiple CPU's to pass around in order to emperically prove this point. I've been asking hardware.info for this test, but their initial testing ruled out no big differences. Mainly due to the fact they weren't testing with different CPU's rather checking CPU load. However, on a 8C/16T CPU that can be very deceptive. Apparently PCLAB.pl recently did a test which shows just exactly what is meant when people say AMD driver overhead (CPU). Full test here; http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html The pages of interest are; GTX 960 vs 380X; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-20.html&usg=ALkJrhg06hJlLQLpavuzqv7fVoF1pYaluw GTX 970 vs 390; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html&usg=ALkJrhiCiWM_xct_ojMuSXiHwHgD0l1DMQ GTX 980TI vs Fury X: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-22.html&usg=ALkJrhiWkWMCsnphhFbjlt_6l88wTqwzkw Test is in polish, i've added google-translated links. I don't want to steal traffic away from them by copying all of their results. So visit those pages for reference. This places into new light the current recommendations of in particular the 380 over the 960 (though bearing in mind, they're testing 380X vs 960 here), and the 390 over the 970. It also highlights that the more powerfull the GPU is, the more CPU is an issue. 980TI vs. Fury X results are pretty telling. Some examples; http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/c3w_1920vh.png http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/f4b_1920u.png These results indicate the issue with the way GPU tests are done. Usually tested with very fast CPU's (4,7ghz 6700K's, 4,6ghz 5960X's) to eliminate CPU bottlenecking. Which is ofcourse the correct way to do it. But it can remove some of the nuance. Yes, on a fast CPU the 380X is no doubt faster than the GTX 960. I've always said AMD's hardware is faster. But usually when recommending those cards, OP has something like an i3 or an i5 locked. And in those scenario's you can see the GTX 960 just edge out. Except for extremely GPU bound locations; http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/w3f_1920u.png Same goes for the GTX 970 vs. the 390. Though it's much less in favor of the 390 in the CPU-bound games like GTA, Fallout 4 etc. http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/f4b_1920u.png http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/c3w_1920vh.png Anyway, thought it was an interesting test. Check it out. And take this into consideration when entering another topic labelled "Which GTX 960" and answering it with "R9-380". Please check which scenario, and which CPU OP has. If it's some FX-6300 or i3...don't.

Most people think AMD's drivers are horrible. On this, and some other forums, it is generally thought that it is a myth. But is it? I've heard many complaints from people with AMD graphics cards, especially now with GTA V. Now, this is what I've experienced first hand, since I own a 290X. First example, BF4. I can confirm that this benchmark is accurate. I'm getting the same performance on my rig. Notice how R9 290X + 4670K with DX11 produce only 61 fps average. Compare that to 4670k + GTX 780, that produce 80 fps. That is a massive difference. If you look at the CPU and GPU usage, 290X is bottlenecked by the 4670K because its usage drops a lot, down to even 50% sometimes. R9 290X is perfectly capable of rendering 80 fps, as we can see with Mantle. So how come is 4670K able to feed GTX 780 with Nvidia's DX11, but not 290X with AMD's DX11? It's obvious that AMD's DX11 driver causes much more CPU overhead than Nvidia's. More CPU cycles used by the driver, less you have for framerate. Now let's look at the GTA V. Same thing. 4770k + 290X produce only 54 fps average, 4770K + 970 72 fps average. Here's how 290X's usage looks like. It's obvious that AMD's DX11 driver is far less efficient than Nvidia's. You might get a faster card for less money, but you're going to need a much faster CPU to get the same framerate as Nvidia's equivalent. R9 290X: 674 796, GTX 970: 1 273 203. Almost 100% difference. 15.4 beta and 350.12.

So I've posted on here before with a preliminary workstation build, but I've gone back and heavily revised it. If you want all the details on why I feel the need to build this thing you can go check out my original post here, but basically I want something that can handle serious multithreaded workloads in Premiere and After Effects as well as game-streaming at 1440p or higher. I also plan to do some light 3D modeling in Blender, I've been playing around with the latest build and I'm really enjoying it, but render times on my old failbook are as insane as you'd expect. The main thing I'd like some feedback on is whether I've got sufficient overhead on my power supply to comfortably play around with overclocks on the CPU and GPU. I'd also be very interested in hearing some monitor and peripheral suggestions. All this is getting thrown in a Fractal Design R5 because I didn't know the NZXT H630 was a thing until I saw Austin Evans' Neutron build, so I've already purchased the case. I'm more than a little butthurt over that. PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 3.3GHz 6-Core Processor ($299.99 @ Micro Center) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-U14S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($67.99 @ Mwave) Motherboard: Asus X99-A/USB 3.1 ATX LGA2011-3 Motherboard ($254.99 @ SuperBiiz) Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($124.99 @ B&H) Storage: Samsung 850 Pro Series 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($142.89 @ OutletPC) Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 970 4GB STRIX Video Card ($319.99 @ SuperBiiz) Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ NCIX US) Total: $1275.83 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-08 15:42 EDT-0400

When looking at power supplies, is this kind of thing a valid concern? Admittedly I'm not necessarily looking at a 290x, but I wonder if there is a rule of thumb for how much overhead per GPU is needed to prevent power protection circuitry from kicking in. E.g. if I was running at 90% of my PSU's rated capacity with dual graphics cards (PSU chosen based on average CPU and GPU(s) power consumption), could these power spikes cause problems if they caused the output of the PSU to be higher than its specified maximum load, even if just for a little while?