David Sanders4 said:I misspoke; what I actually meant to ask was whether there's a noticeable difference in frame rates if I play at native 4K versus using DSRx4k. 🤔 From what I understand, native 4K uses a 1:1 pixel-to-sample ratio, whereas 1080p via DSRx4k acts more like a 4:1 ratio...
I haven't come across any specific tests either, likely because most people aren't rocking 4K monitors—not even the major tech sites, since they usually focus their DSR testing on VRAM consumption rather than raw FPS.
In any case, if there is a significant difference, it probably isn't massive. Here is a thread discussing that very topic: click
David Sanders4 said:With that update, I'm seeing it hover around 3100-3300, though my GPU usage fluctuates between 50% and 90%. I'm looking at a guy running an i7 5820k, and someone else has the exact same issue, so we can rule out a CPU bottleneck here.
That’s why we need to start using the term "game bottleneck." Modern games are often so poorly optimized that the software itself becomes the limiting factor. Developers really need to pull their weight; it isn't always a hardware issue.
I heard one guy mention he's playing Arma 3 and getting absolute garbage FPS, yet his CPU is sitting at 30% and his GPU is at 30% too. *facepalm*
Regarding the topic at hand—we are talking about gaming PCs here. 😁
I mean, it makes sense that this thread has stretched to 25 pages. The OP started this back in September, but didn't actually buy the PC until June...
Christian Miller48 said:If I recall correctly, the card is about 10% more expensive? Well, after hearing all this, I’ve definitely decided to go with the R9 290. I might even consider picking up a cash version if I can—$600-$233 is no small amount
My apologies for missing that; yeah, it'll be roughly 8-10% higher. In my opinion, you don't need to "break the bank" because a system running an R9 280 is already quite a powerhouse.
David Sanders4 said:I'm just curious—I haven't been able to find any info on whether there's a noticeable difference between DSRx4k and native 4K. 🤷 Because I noticed, for instance, in Metro LL, using fHD x4 Supersampling AA versus DSRx4k results in the exact same FPS. So, which one actually looks better? It feels to me like DSR wins out, but maybe I'm just overthinking it...
Of course there's a difference, since DSR doesn't give you the true pixel density of a native 4K display, but it still looks significantly better than standard resolution.
click
Larry Ortiz5 said:I turned on DSR at 4.00x 😬 fired up Tomb Raider at 3360x2100 resolution with everything set to Ultra, and I'm getting about 40 to 43 FPS. I have to say, I'm pretty impressed; I didn't realize this GPU was such a beast. VRAM usage sat around 2.2-3 GB, which is quite 👍
Naturally, not every game hogs VRAM like crazy (only a handful of recent titles). Most games until recently barely touched 1GB at 1080p, so you can easily play most things like that, or even push to 4K or 1440p. Especially if you aren't running heavy AA filters, because IMO they aren't even necessary at standard resolutions, let alone when you're downsampling.
Are those old installations you're working with, or did you install the OS directly on this machine? If you migrated the installation from another computer, you'll need to re-record it. If it’s native to this PC, try using the driver from that link instead
edit
I managed to track down the manual on the motherboard manufacturer's official website🤷
You might want to consider going with an A4 series chip—like the 5300 or 6300. Even though the Celeron technically has more raw processing power, if you aren't planning on adding a dedicated graphics card, this one offers significantly better integrated graphics performance.
You definitely aren't going to want to run that on something like Assassin's Creed Unity or those few massive titles that just eat up all your resources. DSR is actually fantastic for games where the graphics are stunning but you can still maintain a solid 60fps. I'm talking older titles or newer games that aren't overly demanding. For instance, one of the main ads for DSR actually featured Dark Souls 2 (check out the link from David Sanders4). At the end of the day, regarding what you're asking—just give it a shot once you have it 😁
Man, I’m running an Intel Celeron with just the integrated Intel HD Graphics, and I’m actually hitting 60fps on very high settings—just without any shadows, haha.
Saying 60fps on very high might be a bit of a stretch, but you can definitely play it.
Over here, there are plenty of much more demanding titles that struggle to even hit 20fps at 768p.
It looks like you're running an AMD setup with integrated graphics plus a dedicated GPU—what people call a dual GPU configuration. I’m not personally familiar with DriverMax, but honestly, those third-party driver tools are usually more trouble than they're worth; they often come bundled with junk like adware or spyware. If I were you, I'd just uninstall it immediately.
Generally speaking, you should always grab your drivers directly from the official manufacturer's site (like Lenovo) or use the disc that came with the machine. However, if you want to keep your graphics card truly up to date, you can go straight to the official AMD website here.
It’s hardly "old news" when it was just published three days ago 😬
Of course it isn't. Previously, the rumor mill suggested the entire series would undergo a rebranding—specifically that the R9 380/380X would essentially become the R9 290/290X, while the R9 370 would be positioned as the R9 285.
Just head into your BIOS—hit Main, then go to Configuration, and set SATA mode to AHCI (check page 72 of the manual)
To be honest, I'm a bit lost on your OS setup. Are you running a separate OS on every single drive and swapping them out, or are you just doing a full reinstall every time?
AMD has never officially confirmed any plans for a rebrand (including this one); those were just rumors floating around tech sites, which, let's be honest, usually end up being right. It seemed logical that they’d just reuse some high-end cards from the previous generation, but it looks like they changed their minds. Word on the street is June might be the window
Word on the street is that AMD is ditching the rebrand strategy entirely and going all-in on completely new graphics cards instead. No more recycled hardware this time!
No way, keep in mind those are only $300 for an entire PC that they put 😬together . Basically, you might be able to pick up a used 280X and maybe a compatible power supply .
The R9 290 is easily the most powerful card you can grab right now, offering a noticeable step up from anything else in its class.
Regarding the power supply, while there are certainly cheaper options that might get the job done, this unit stands out because it’s a bit more premium than the rest of the build. That said, the value is actually incredible when you consider what a high-quality Gold-rated unit usually costs, especially with that 5-year warranty included...
I'm not quite following your question about the cooling setup. The TRI-X features an aftermarket cooler; if you were thinking about the stock blower-style fan, then no, you definitely don't want that kind of setup on a card like this.naturally,for example, 😬
You might want to try putting Hiren's Boot onto a USB drive or burning it to a CD—there are plenty of tutorials online to help you out—then just boot from it to run some diagnostics. For instance, it includes MemTest86, so I'd recommend running a RAM test for at least an hour, followed by a check on your hard drive...
Your friend did a solid job putting this together, but honestly, you don't really need an aftermarket cooler for that CPU. If you opt for a noticeably cheaper motherboard instead, you can reallocate those funds toward a more powerful graphics card—like an AMD Radeon R9 290—to get much better gaming performance.
Instar is definitely more expensive, and if my memory serves me right, I think Protis still charges extra for assembly services.
You should also check out places like Amazon, Best Buy, Newegg, and Walmart if you're looking for options.
EDIT
Here it is, minus the optical drive and the SSD:
One Intel Core i5 3350 processor. MSI B75MA-E33 motherboard, LGA 1155 socket, DDR3 support, S3/U3, HDMI, GL. 1 x Crucial 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz (PC3-12800) CL11 Sapphire R9 290, TRI-X edition, featuring 4GB of GDDR5. 1 x Seagate Barracuda Hard Drive (3.5", 1TB, 64MB, SATA III) One Fortron Aurum S 600W PSU, featuring an 80+ GOLD rating. One Zalman Z3, featuring USB3.0 in black, equipped with three 120mm fans.
Total: $2182
It’s all about what lies ahead.
Look, even though we're dealing with an older socket here, picking up an I5 3350p is absolutely worth it right now. It’s just such a solid value play. $83It's actually a better deal than the Intel Core i5-4460. In terms of raw performance, they’re basically neck and neck. The only catch is that the I5 3350 lacks integrated graphics, so you'll need a dedicated card, and the power supply situation is a bit swagg. Still, given how low the price is, you can easily save some cash by picking this up instead. This is what we're working with. ili This is it.Honestly, man, I can't even. 750W. Just checking in. $13 It’s definitely pricier, and you don't necessarily need that much raw power, but honestly? It’s worth the investment.
I honestly don't see the point in going with an i7 if you're just playing games occasionally. 🤷 She didn't mention needing any heavy-duty performance for things like 3D rendering or anything else demanding...
The only reason to do that would be if the goal is to blow the entire budget at once.
Sophia Anderson35 said:I feel like the Samsung Evo is way overpriced, and I can't see the price ever dropping to a reasonable level.
It's not "overpriced" when the Samsung 250 GB 850 Series Basic is hands down the best value SSD for that kind of money, especially with a 5-year warranty. It's a total no-brainer best-buy.