Larry Ortiz5 said:Dual GPU—the name itself gives it away, doesn't it? 🙂 It means you've got two cards packed into one. Personally, I’d steer clear. The power draw is massive, and the heat levels would be enough to turn my rig into a space heater. If the goal is simply to crank everything to Ultra at 1080p, then a GTX 770 or an R9 280X is more than sufficient for most people. That’s just my take, though; everyone has their own preference. 😉
p.s. Just a heads-up: if you go that route, you'll definitely need a beefy CPU to keep up..
The GTX 690 isn't actually that much of a power hog; its consumption is roughly on par with the Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X or the GTX 780 Ti Anyone who picked up an HD 5970 when it first launched didn't have to worry about lowering settings for nearly a decade. Similarly, those rocking an HD 6990, GTX 590, or even the newer GTX 690 and HD 7990 are going to have a pretty smooth ride. Even the GTX 760 holds its own. That said, let's be honest: those top-tier models are overpriced. I think it's smarter to stay in that "sweet spot" of performance. Until recently, that meant the GTX 660 or HD 7870, but nowadays, we're looking at the GTX 770 or R9 280X. My strategy is usually to grab one of those with a solid three-year warranty, run it for about eighteen months to two years, and then trade it in for the next generation in the same tier. It keeps you hovering comfortably in that 30-60 FPS range.
mistymason18 said:Hey everyone, I could really use some help here. A few days ago, I was gaming and needed to check something online; when I minimized the game, the whole system just froze. I tried a hard reset, and then the screen filled up with all these red lines you see in the picture. After that, the Windows logo pops up, but it won't actually boot into Windows. I even tried booting into Ubuntu, but that failed too.[/url]
Oh, and I almost forgot—if we're talking about a replacement GPU, could someone recommend the best option under $467? I did some digging and found this one .
It looks like a classic case of RLOD. Still, try following what Benjamin King2 suggested. If anyone nearby has a spare card you can test with, give that a shot. If the RLOD keeps happening but the card still runs games, it might just be a faulty connector. However, I suspect this might be the end of the line for that card... As for getting a new one, just pick whichever fits your needs best; the R9 270 and the X series are pretty much neck-and-neck. Just make sure you get something with a 3-year warranty so you don't have to deal with this all over again.
I’d suggest sticking with what was recommended to the guy above. An AMD Radeon R7 260X, an HD 7850, or an AMD Radeon HD 7790 should do the trick—though the HD 7850 is definitely the powerhouse of the group, it does come with a higher price tag.
If you head over to those links, the vendor will walk you through the best options for your budget. You might even score a free keychain out of the deal if you're lucky.
For any serious gaming, this build is really just hitting the bare minimum. To be honest, they feel overpriced and a bit unpolished. When someone lists a spec as vague as "500W power supply," you have to wonder what kind of low-grade component they’re actually hiding in there. But the biggest red flag for me? That shady "void if removed" warranty nonsense.
If you're looking at playing Assassin's Creed IV, an Nvidia solution is probably the smarter move. If the goal is to have a card that stays reliable for a decent stretch of time, the GTX 660 is the way to go; it handles AC4 better, and even though it costs a bit more than the HD 7850, its performance actually edges out the HD 7870. In my opinion, this whole setup feels like a bit of a compromise. Once you've saved up enough, you'd be better off jumping to an FX-6300 or maybe an i3-3240.
On my end, if the system time isn't set correctly on Windows XP, I usually find myself having to reboot immediately after the initial startup. Once I get the clock adjusted, everything tends to run smoothly again.
If you have a friend who works in the field, or if you can find someone through a professional contact, I’d suggest handing it over to them to take a look. This isn't really the kind of thing you can diagnose from a distance; you need eyes on the hardware to know what's actually happening. You might be able to narrow it down using some trial and error, much like how Benjamin King2 suggested
If your power supply is running steadily, there’s really no reason to swap it out just because an SSD pulls a measly 2-3W. The only logic in changing it would be if you’re already planning a major hardware overhaul down the road and want to upgrade early for peace of mind—but even then, I’d say it's hard to justify the expense. You're better off putting that money into savings. As for the SSD, this is the most budget-friendly option I've come across: Kingston 120 GB SSDNow V300 sat 3 2.5 Just a heads-up: it doesn't come with a 2.5" to 3.5" mounting bracket, so you'll need to pick one up separately (maybe $3 or so), unless you opt for a kit version, though I doubt that's worth the extra cost. But if you're curious about something a bit more premium, Samsung evo kit SSD 120 GB SATA3 The Samsung drive actually performs better in benchmarks, but honestly, you won't notice a significant difference in day-to-day use compared to the other one when you're making the jump from an HDD.
NVIDIA GTX 660 OC Twin Frozr is likely your better bet here. It comes with a two-year warranty, draws significantly less power, runs quieter, and stays much cooler—all while delivering performance on par with the NVIDIA GTX 570. You also have the option of NVIDIA GTX 660 OC Both cards roughly match the performance of the NVIDIA GTX 580 mentioned by the author regarding the NVIDIA GTX 570.
Ryan Wilson7 said:Guys, let's set the benchmarks aside for a second. If you were in my shoes, would you actually swap an AMD Radeon HD 7870 for an NVIDIA GTX 760? I’d have to cough up a decent amount of extra cash to make the switch... would that $167 price gap actually be worth it?
The rest of my rig: i5 750, Intel dp55wb, Corsair CX500, 8GB RAM...
It really depends on the deal. If I had a year-old HD 7870 sitting there and could trade it in for $167 a brand new GTX 760, then yeah, it's a no-brainer. It would basically feel like someone gave you a credit for your old card toward the new one...
James Castillo8 said:I've been digging through these benchmarks and my takeaway is that the 5850 is basically hovering near the 7850... though the 5770 in CF acts more like a 5870. Which would mean the 5870 actually edges out the 7850—purely on paper, anyway. In theory, the 5770 CF should perform like a 7850, but obviously, it won't even inside CF... unless you want to pay that extra $133 premium for the 3.8 GHz overclock. Honestly, the smartest move is probably just upgrading to hit maybe 50-60 FPS on medium settings in BF 4—if you're willing to ditch the ultra effects and AA...
The 5870 isn't quite on par with the HD 7850. However, the HD 5970 is right on the heels of the HD 7950. Whoever picked up that card when it first launched certainly had themselves a good time... assuming they're even still using it today.
If I recall correctly, you’re running an HD 7870, right? I was wondering how it handled titles like Batman or Metro 2033, especially since you have quite a decent setup. How's that processor holding up?.... To be honest, I was getting absolutely hammered by frame rate drops in Batman specifically because of PhysX. It was pretty brutal. On the other hand, I didn't run into nearly as many stutters while playing Metro 2033, though that was only after I turned those settings off. PhysX It feels like a lot gets lost in translation visually. When you’re looking at things like textures or paper, they often end up looking completely lifeless or just get stripped out entirely. It's a different story with Arma 3, though. The physics engine there absolutely devours CPU cycles, which explains why you see such a massive difference when it comes to CPU scaling. When I look back at titles like Far Cry 2 or 3, it’s hard not to notice that they just don't have that same kind of... well, anything. There's a certain quality missing compared to what we see now. Destruction.It feels more like a cosmetic upgrade at this point, honestly. It reminds me of how things played out with Crysis 1 and 2; you had much more meaningful interactivity with the environment back then. Trimming the trees.It feels like we're treating things like the demolition of those temporary sheds as if they were some major, monumental event. I’ve been looking back at the Battlefield series lately, specifically the Bad Company era, and it really makes you realize how much the DNA of the franchise has shifted over the years. There was a certain charm to those games—a specific kind of grit mixed with a sense of humor that felt much more grounded than the massive, cinematic spectacles we see now. It wasn't just about the destruction; it was about the atmosphere. Even though modern titles have certainly pushed the technical boundaries, there's something about that older style of gameplay that stays with you. The Battlefield series is built on the Frostbite engine, yet they seem to rely heavily on... Havok physics.I suspect that’s exactly where modern gaming has hit a plateau. Instead of pushing actual innovation, developers seem to be coasting on polishing textures and obsessively smoothing out jagged edges with various forms of Antialiasing—you know, the whole TAA and FXAA dance. It feels like they're just layering more effects rather than evolving the core experience. Volumetric. The clouds and fog look incredible. DirectX 11 really leveled things up. Tessellation What was actually the significant difference there? Compared to Parallax occlusion mapping—which, let's be honest, is really just a clever illusion—Crysis tends to lean on PAM in spots where Tessellation wouldn't offer much of an advantage anyway. I can't help but wonder if the next Half-Life might actually shake things up again. Every time a new title from them drops, it feels like a genuine breath of fresh air for the industry. Back in 2008, I honestly thought trailers like these would be the standard for every single game by 2013. My expectations were clearly a bit optimistic. Nvidia - Massive Destruction in real-time tech demo
Patrick Diaz49 said:So, David Sanders4, according to you, if someone uses an AMD card, they can't play 90% of today's games?😁 😁
When someone drops a comment as narrow-minded as that, there isn't much point in continuing the conversation... I specifically listed games that utilize NVIDIA's physics, and I also noted that those titles can be played by either disabling the feature or letting the CPU handle the load... some games rely on it more than others—titles like Batman, Mafia, or Metro fall into the higher usage category. That should wrap this up for us; I have little interest in explaining myself to someone being so superficial. Feel free to ignore my posts from here on out.
Patrick Diaz49 said:As soon as someone cites physics as their reasoning, I know exactly what's going on... and I know I don't need to argue with them anymore.😁
Physics is a perfectly valid reason for anyone actually playing those specific games.
Patrick Diaz49 said:...P.S. David Sanders4...make up your mind. First, you say a 280x won't work at all, and now you're saying if he sticks with Wood's build, he doesn't need to change anything. You're just spinning circles in every post and making it harder for the guy to decide what to buy... there's no need for it.
Try reading carefully... I looked through the entire Best Buy inventory for the cheapest options, and the GTX 770 isn't priced under $1000, whereas the equivalent R9 280x is nearly $233 cheaper. That is far too large a price gap for NVIDIA to justify the advantage. That is why I said there is no sense in going for the GTX 770.
I wasn't suggesting that specific link was the definitive word on the matter; I was merely using it to show how much of this stuff is floating around on eBay. Whether it’s actually worth anything or not $250 is anyone's guess—it's a bit of a gamble, really. It seems aimed at people who have a little extra cash to burn, but not quite enough to justify a complete overhaul of their entire system...