problematic: I’m pretty sure this is some weird graphics issue, so I’ll just dump it here instead of starting a whole new thread... So, I picked up Revenant on GOG, installed it, and when I tried to launch it, I got a prompt to install DirectPlay. I did that, and now the game runs perfectly fine on my end. But then I copied the whole folder over to my buddy who doesn't have internet access, and he keeps getting an app crash right at startup. I’ve already tried everything—installed the Microsoft DirectX runtime, .NET Framework, his GPU drivers (he’s rocking an Nvidia 8500 or maybe a 9500 GT), and all the VC redistributables, but nothing works; the game just crashes. I was reading up on this DirectPlay thing and apparently, they pulled it out of DirectX because of security vulnerabilities, and I noticed that under his Windows features, there isn't even a legacy section with the DirectPlay option, whereas I actually see it on my machine since I'm running Windows 10 64 Pro while he's stuck on Windows 7 Home 32 bit... what am I supposed to do? Other games from GOG work totally fine for him, except for Vampire: The Masquerade, which just dies after playing for a little bit... his DEP settings are on default, and I even tried copying Revenant to a thumb drive twice. The first time I installed it, the desktop icon didn't have that little elevation shield, but after the second copy, it did... even though the source files are identical. Either way, it just crashes on launch...
Bradley Lewis59 said:They’re basically just laptops without a keyboard or a monitor. Honestly, you'd be way better off grabbing some mini-ITX case and just cramming whatever the hell you want inside.
I mean, a car with 400 horsepower might actually end up being slower than one with 300, but whatever, that's not even the point. I'm honestly just scratching my head at your comment about picking out a GPU based on factory settings... like, how, what, where, or when does that actually help you conclude anything? It doesn't really make sense, I guess.
Let's say, for example, I'm an incredibly demanding user and I need some advice on picking a graphics setup. I want to run The Witcher 3 and Crysis 3 on Ultra settings without making any compromises whatsoever. My monitor is 3440 x 1440 at 60 Hz. Both games absolutely have to hit an average framerate of 60 Hz or higher. But wait, there's more. Since rendering at native resolution creates these ugly artifacts, I want to crank the resolution up to 4865 x 2036 using DSR or something similar. So, there it is: 4865x2036, 60 Hz, Ultra, Crysis 3, The Witcher 3. Alright, go ahead, geniuses. Let's see what you got.
P.S. You guys can probably future-proof it to 75 Hz right away if you try hard enough. 🍿 🤣
I think you might be asking for a little too much here. Like, two 980 Ti cards in a SLI setup would be fine for 4K gaming, but even that probably wouldn't cut it for you. Maybe—and I know everyone's gonna come for me again—you could pull it off with a Quadro M6000, assuming those old specs from before the wiki edits were actually right. That's workstation-grade gear, but if those old numbers were accurate, it should theoretically have three times the GFLOPS of a 980 Ti and enough gigapixels per second to handle what you're looking for. Of course, I haven't seen any actual game benchmarks, so I can't say for sure, but based on raw factory power—assuming those stats weren't wrong—it might be exactly what you're after...
edit: actually, never mind, it won't work. I found the correct data and it isn't even close to those numbers that were on the wiki before...
I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation and honestly, it’s just... it's a lot. I guess I’m just rambling now, but there's something about the way things are moving lately that feels off, you know? Like, maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just seeing what everyone else is too afraid to say out loud. It’s like we’re all just drifting along without really checking if the compass is even working anymore. I don't know, it's hard to put a finger on it, but it definitely feels like we're heading toward a cliff while everyone is busy arguing about the color of the car. Anyway, just my two cents, I suppose. kaže: ...
Thanks for the heads up. I guess that means buying another PC is officially off the table then... honestly, I just don't have the energy to deal with that kind of bullshit.
Quick question for you guys: I haven’t really messed around with desktop towers much before, but now I’m stuck working on one. It’s some brand-name, used HP 6000 Pro sff machine. I’m guessing SFF stands for Small Form Factor, which is honestly driving me crazy right now. Basically, how am I supposed to upgrade this thing with a GPU? I checked, and my card just won't fit; if I try to take off the metal bracket covering the PCIe slot, the casing itself is way too narrow for the card to slide in, even though the actual PCIe slot looks totally normal. I actually really dig the case otherwise, but this whole GPU situation is seriously getting on my nerves when I think about upgrading later. I checked Newegg and they don't seem to carry any SFF-specific cards at all, so I have no clue where I'd even find one?
Look, I’ve been watching all those hardware benchmarks just like everyone else here... and I’ve been doing it for years now... it’s basically like how you have a Mercedes-Benz or an Opel out there... there's AMD and there's Nvidia... every brand has its own specific models, its own price points, its own little tech gimmicks, and all of them get reviewed on a bunch of different sites... so obviously, you’re gonna check out some reviews before you drop your cash. But you guys in here are insisting that a 200hp Mercedes-Benz is somehow better than a 300hp Opel, and you're trying to back that up by saying Michael Schumacher clocked a faster lap in it than Senna did in the other one. And honestly, the best part is, I never even disputed that; I was just saying that the 300hp Opel is technically the more powerful machine, and depending on the driver, the track, the weather, the time of day, the tire grip, and all that other stuff, it could potentially pull worse numbers than a BMW, but it's still the more powerful car... yet you guys just keep relentlessly mocking me, belittling my point, making fun of me, and shutting me down, even though I'm actually right...
wiredotter14 said:What you're getting at is basically like saying a '65 Mustang with some super primitive 4.7L engine pushing 200 horses is somehow "faster" than a brand new Nissan just because it’s got more displacement under the hood. If you're such an expert on these "tricks," then maybe you should just run your own tests under whatever conditions you think are "fair" and start your own blog.
But anyway, putting that aside, if people really needed direct links to those sites, they could have just typed the card name into Google and picked from the top results.
Regarding the upgrade: The 7870 is convincingly better than the other ones mentioned, and if you can swing the cash, I guess I'd definitely recommend it to someone living in Canada. I'm running my 7850 right now, and let's just say it handled Grand Theft Auto V on pretty solid settings (high).
Well, look, we're talking about cards that came out almost at the same time here... I mean, sure, I agree that Nvidia uses less power, that their manufacturing process is smaller, and that—I don't know—it's technically more advanced, but AMD gives you way more bang for your buck. And yeah, I'll admit the 78XX series is stronger than the two we talked about, but it's also older and probably sucks up even more electricity, plus the guy is using a 17-inch monitor and likely has a really low resolution anyway, and if he buys used, the thing might just die on him tomorrow...
Honestly, I feel like the factory specs on these cards matter way more than any random real-world testing you see online. It’s kind of like picking out a car—you either go for one with 300 horsepower or one with 400, right? At the end of the day, how much performance an actual driver can squeeze out of them is pretty much irrelevant... if you check GPU-Z, you're looking at the raw, factory power, which is what actually counts in my book. I mean, if someone actually takes the time to tweak their AMD card settings to match a competitor's Nvidia setup, they'll see the true reality of the situation during real-world use. Most of those gaming benchmarks are just kind of useless, if you ask me.
Anthony Jackson2 said:I mean, I could probably find those numbers too, but I’m just not really a fan of synthetic benchmarks, and honestly, I don't trust them all that much.
Real-world experience and actual reviews are pretty much the only thing I care about, I guess.
🤣 There isn't even much point in me adding anything else after that...
swiftfalcon89 said:And what does it even matter if one card looks "stronger" on paper when it comes down to what actually matters—gaming? In most cases, that GTX 750 Ti is basically equal, or maybe even hitting higher frame rates than the R7 260 x. Plus, you get an extra year of warranty, it runs cooler, it's quieter, and it pulls less power, right?
BF4
Witcher 3
GTA V
On paper, the R7 370 looks more powerful than the GTX 950, but once you're actually playing games, it's a whole different story.
It feels like Nvidia has some kind of secret sauce with their drivers and specific settings for every single game. You can literally go into the Nvidia control panel and see individual profiles they've set up for each title. I haven't seen a single relevant gameplay test online where those specific tweaks were disabled just to show how the cards actually compare without the help.
Anthony Jackson2 said:you can probably snag a used HD 7870 for like $700, which I guess is pretty much the ceiling for me right now, so I don't even bother looking at new cards because you just end up paying way more for less performance, though I'll probably be hunting for an upgrade in a year anyway since they'll likely feel underpowered by then.
so I feel like there are basically two ways to play this: either grab something beefier like the 7870 and then deal with upgrading the CPU and everything else later on, or just pick up a 7770 for $133 and then just overhaul the whole rig in maybe a year or so.
honestly, you might be better off just grabbing the 7770, I mean, on a 17-inch laptop screen you aren't really gonna notice a massive difference... just try to find one that actually comes with a warranty so the thing doesn't just die on you the next day...
Anthony Jackson2 said:What should I pair with my Core i3-4130? Maybe an HD 7770, or should I just stretch the budget for a 7870? I mean, I know it probably won't push a 7870 to its full potential, but still...
My monitor is some ancient thing, just a 17" LCD
I'm planning on upgrading the CPU eventually, but definitely not within the next year or so—not until prices for an i5 or even a basic i3 finally drop. And honestly, the motherboard and the monitor will probably get upgraded in maybe ten years, if ever. I guess... what are the actual odds that used graphics cards will even survive all that time? Like, what's the average lifespan of these things?
I'm not entirely sure how smart it is to grab an older card with limited DirectX 11.2 support, but you can snag an EVGA Radeon series at Future IT for a pretty sweet price. It’s got nearly 2 teraflops of power under the hood...
graniteharbor85 said:LOL, honestly everything after that first run of CX units (EVGA) is total junk—including that CX 430-M you're looking at right now. It’s basically pointless to call it "modular" when you end up using every single cable anyway... for that kind of cash, you can grab a much better EVGA SuperNOVA.
analogtiger19 said:Which older models? My EVGA SuperNOVA from 2009 is both 80+ and bronze...☕>
I mean, right when they first dropped those EVGA units, I think they switched up their whole manufacturing process or something, and honestly, those power supplies were total garbage... then they released the v2 versions, and eventually the 80+ bronze ones. Back when they had the HX series, they were actually using EVGA components and they were top-tier; I used to run an HX1000 back in the day.
Could I get a ballpark estimate on this setup? Also, if you guys want to make an offer, maybe just shoot me a DM?
Intel Core i7 PC build Zalman 7700cu Gigabyte 880 UD3H rev 2.2 Nvidia GeForce GTX 275 Kingston Hyperx Blu 2 X2GB DDR3 Wester Digital 640 AAKS Caviar Blue Seasonic S12II 520 w Bitfenix
Black note: So, the primary PCIe slot on the motherboard is acting up a bit—it's basically half-broken. The fan on the card spins up fine, but I'm not getting any signal on the monitor at all. The GPU works totally fine if I plug it into the second slot, though.
If I actually manage to make some decent cash this month and finally offload my old junk, maybe I could stretch my budget enough to hit this number... so, I guess, does this look alright to you guys?
