Posts by Kimberly Gomez34

Paul Baker14, with that processor of yours, you aren't going to be able to handle anything even remotely demanding

darkowl72 said:Honestly, just walk away from them, especially if you're looking at an iPhone. Which model do you have? There aren't exactly many repair shops around here, so if things go south, you're stuck traveling all the way to the border just to get help.

BTW Meanwhile in America...

eDigital is hitting some serious new lows, based on the latest posts over on the PC forums:
- They play dumb about receiving phones for warranty repairs; it’s been six months and there's still zero word on the device (it sounds like the customer's wife couldn't quite figure out how to file a formal complaint against them).
- They are peddling junk TVs. Apparently, through a contact working with a technician in Denmark, someone tracked the serial numbers and found out eDigital bought and is selling defective factory stock (which only came with a measly one-year warranty).

Of course, you should take everything you read online with a grain of salt, but it seems like being incompetent is just part of their business model. 👏

Send an email to system one

fadedorca66 said:I honestly wouldn't drop more than $100$50 on a semi-functional board.

It’s true—looking at it, the second PCIe slot only offers x4 bandwidth. That said, $200 it should be perfectly fine for all three components; if things get really tight, you could always throttle it down to $167 in an emergency.

There are all sorts of games out there, but here is one absolute beast that pushes both RAM and VRAM to the limit: click

VRAM Put to the Test: 2GB vs. 4GB GTX 960 and R9 380, 4GB R9 290 vs. 8GB R9 390

In a handful of the tested titles, you can see a slight difference in FPS—though they didn't measure frametimes, where I suspect the gap would be even more significant in those specific games. It’s quite interesting to note that the extra 4GB provides a much larger boost for the R9 380 than it does for the GTX 960 (likely due to the lower bandwidth on that card)

restlessorca14 said:Could someone clarify the whole 1TB HDD thing? I’m honestly a bit lost here and don't know how to add that in. 😁 Does that require changing the suggested build, or what? When I search on Micro Center, I just get a million different results. 🙂 I know my question sounds pretty silly, but I'm stuck. 🙂

Yeah, if you look at Micro Center, you'd find this, though I believe the other suggestion came from IT Future. But honestly, most of those options include it anyway.

If it's running fine, just leave it alone. If you're looking to cut down on power consumption, swap that 380 out for an NVIDIA GTX 960 instead. click

What kind of budget are you working with for the rest of the build? It's possible that none of these options represent the best value once you factor in the cost of all your other components

Digital distribution pretty much dominates the scene these days, whether you're going with an official release or a cracked version. You don't even need a disc burner anymore—unless you’ve already picked up a physical DVD, of course. Just make sure to add an extra 1TB HDD to your build.

What on earth? Your motherboard actually has a USB 3.0 header 😁

To put it simply: it's entirely up to you. If by "storing" you mean archiving a collection rather than just viewing and deleting files, a USB drive probably isn't your best bet—it'll fill up before you know it, and you'll eventually need that drive for something else. Burning DVDs feels like a relic of the past to me; it’s expensive and frankly a huge hassle. Your most logical, streamlined option is just using an external hard drive.

Regarding transferring data from a DVD, you can use programs like these. Of course, if the files are already organized in folders in another format, you can just use a simple drag-and-drop to move them to your hard drive. However, if you actually own a DVD drive—whether it's a burner or a standard player—I don't see much point in migrating the files at all; just keep the discs.

Reviewers test hardware under standardized conditions. That’s the absolute foundation of everything they do. They explicitly list the specific hardware used, the software version, the drivers, the settings, and the resolution. If someone's CPU is bottlenecking the system, or if their power supply is too weak for the build—that isn't the reviewer's fault.

You mentioned recently that you don't trust a single website or reviewer—wtf? As if everyone is out there specifically plotting to screw people over. And just as a side note: if you want to switch your definition of performance from texel rate to pixel rate one day, or GFLOPS the next—be my guest, but stop confusing everyone else with those half-baked arguments.

electricharbor30 said:So, you're actually claiming an older chip outperforms the newer one? Do you have a benchmark link I can check out?

Which older one? I have no idea what you're talking about. 🤣

BTW, I updated my previous post. It turns out the GTX 750 is even more capable than the GTX 460 than I initially thought.

crimsonstag84 said:It’s just like how Fury was about 15% slower than Titan at launch; they've managed to close that gap a bit through driver updates.

The reality is that Fury actually boasts significantly higher GFLOPS than Titan (8,602 vs 6,144), which completely contradicts the logic used by electricharbor30—his whole "GFLOPS matters" argument. 😬
Nobody actually looks at those numbers except him (and maybe a few console gamers).

EDIT

If we use the HD7770 as a benchmark, the GTX 750 OC is actually 30% more powerful than the GTX 460, according to this link, and this link. Obviously, the games used in both summaries aren't identical, but you get the point. Someone who doesn't know any better would be seriously misled if they relied solely on that site. Newer titles can increasingly penalize the aging GTX 460 due to driver support—in fact, even the newer Kepler cards have been left behind.

electricharbor30 said:It seems they’re roughly in the same ballpark, except the 750 pulls way less power... why is that? Have you seen any benchmarks suggesting otherwise? Based strictly on GFLOPS, I’d assume the GTX 750 would be about 5% faster at 1080p resolution...

Because in actual gaming, it’s roughly 20% more powerful. According to those links you shared, it should technically be weaker, given that it's only about 5% ahead on paper via "GFLOPS." That's the discrepancy right there.

electricharbor30 said:I'm looking at this and scratching my head. After reading through all these specs, they claim pixel fill rate doesn't matter if you have a SoC processor, texture fill rate is just for visual flair, and memory bandwidth is only relevant for extra effects like anti-aliasing... which leaves us with nothing but GFLOPS, which the description claims actually impacts gaming performance. What they fail to mention is the amount of VRAM on the card itself, which apparently only matters for storing textures and has zero impact on actual performance...

You're barking up the wrong tree. The GPU chip is EVERYTHING. All that talk about texture fill rate, fill rate, memory bandwidth, or VRAM capacity—those are just individual components that make up the whole. Of course, drivers matter too; if the software is garbage, the hardware will underperform.

What you're doing is like trying to figure out which car is faster by checking the windshield wipers, how much glue is in the tires, the seats, the bodywork, or whether there's an air freshener hanging from the mirror, while completely ignoring the engine (which is what actually counts).

Take this example from your link (this was just my first thought; I'm sure there are even more extreme cases)

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/AFOX_A...P/2DI/1GD5/V2/

Which GPU do you think is more powerful? This is exactly why we constantly tell people not to rely solely on HWCompare and similar sites.

I previously sent you a link regarding GFLOPS (for instance, Fury x vs Titan x)

That power supply isn't just sufficient—it's overkill. You can drop just about any graphics card in there since the PCIe slot is a universal standard; whether it's 2.0 or 3.0, they all play nice together.
As for the memory, they aggregate, meaning you'd be looking at 12GB of RAM. That said, there is a slim chance—though highly unlikely—that certain modules might be temperamental and refuse to work in tandem. Honestly, though, you won't need more than 8GB of RAM for gaming.

So, what does it say on the power supply? What’s the specific model number?

Regarding the processor—you're out of luck there. You'd basically need to overhaul the entire platform (CPU, motherboard, RAM), and even then, the game is going to run like garbage because the graphics card is barely hitting the minimum requirements. What kind of budget are we looking at? If you don't want to blow through your savings, honestly, your best bet might be to just download FIFA 16 plus a patch for the 2015/16 season and actually enjoy yourself properly.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:Who's actually saying that? 😳
I've been playing everything on High settings since I got my hands on this 750 Ti. 😳

Sure, but how are you supposed to run something like Assassin's Creed Syndicate on a GPU like a 250X? You'd be forced to drop the resolution from 1080p or just settle for a choppy 25-30 FPS.

Maybe 900p on Low settings.

Benchmark results

System Requirements

According to the official system requirements for most modern titles, cards like the GTX 660 or an HD7870 (R9 270) are becoming the baseline. Though, in my experience, those specs are often a bit optimistic—you can usually squeeze by with something even weaker.

Let's be honest: cards like the R7 360, 260X, or a 750Ti are basically the floor now if you want to hit 1080p at 30fps+. Even then, many of these GPUs still fall short of what developers claim are the "minimum requirements"—though those specs are usually just a total joke lately, written poorly just to pad out the box art.