Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D2ultima

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Benchmarks / Re: OFFICIAL GATT 3DMark Leaderboard
« on: May 23, 2018, 12:08:47 AM »
Wait nah this thread still active? Feel like I hadda come break in that top 5 with a laptop there

Benchmarks / Re: OFFICIAL GATT 3DMark Leaderboard
« on: September 27, 2016, 06:48:45 AM »
Eh, lemme light a fire under allyuh. Look, it have ah man beat allyuh #1 score here... with a laptop:

Allyuh taking dat? BENCH BENCH BENCH FELLAS. Doh worry, whenever I get an upgrade I go come rumble some more. Maybe before that I go see if I can't take the spot of the man above me.

Pity you don't have those test results.

I didn't get any jitter or slow down even during peak times on this fiber connection.

Now we need to figure out what to do with all this bandwidth. Feel free to pitch ideas.

The twitch is a good one. More the merrier.
Yeah, but at the time I never felt like it made much of any sense to save it. I certainly didn't think I'd be bringing it up 6 years later for the at-the-time working-really-well Flow.

No jitter or slowdown would be great. But what I getting from flow right now is much twitch throttling especially in the evenings and I've had way too much packetloss issues, so hopefully they shape up soon. Digicel coming in guns blazing, especially with lower pings.

Twitch isn't a good idea, because 3500Kbps is about the limit you have, and for a non-partner it's suicide. Hitbox would be a far better idea to get consistent quality from, and even better would be youtube streaming where 10,000 bitrate is easily done by many. You could also use it for many high quality uploads to youtube, or streaming to multiple websites from one connection for the purpose of tournaments, for example (though the load on that system would be another matter entirely, unless multiple systems for multiple tournaments are used).

Or maybe you could upload and host useful files/patches/mods for users to get access to. That's about all I figure the net usage could run for though.

This is the fastest I've ever seen in real life. If you saw faster, I'd love to see those test results.

Do you still have them to share?
I don't. I was in the IT room with my last laptop back then, and all I did was run a speedtest while connected via LAN. I just remember that it was here for many years already.

What will it take to please allyuh trini again boy?  :lol:

I say run yuh fibre and do better yes.   Impress yuhself.
I not saying it good or bad, I just saying that since I know the tech has been in Trinidad for about 6 years already, and since they can't hold an actual gigabit up/down speed to their own local servers, it doesn't seem as impressive to me as it is seeming to you.

Now if this was publicly available for a decent price, similar to how Google Fiber was being offered in some places of the US, then I'd be impressed. Until then however the myriad of packetloss issues and internet slowdowns in load times for websites etc even though download and upload speeds are full, and jitter on the line with Flow doesn't really make me feel quite as amazed.

Anybody want to impress me, they have to be IMPRESSIVE. Just because it has nothing else in its class currently doesn't mean it's impressive =D. Just like the Razer Blade didn't impress me when it launched and was the only laptop in its class. It isn't an impressive machine.

Man, I gonna be real serious. If they selling gigabit internet and can't even achieve gigabit internet to their own servers.... I real not impressed. I tested gigabit internet from TSTT back in 2009 in SBCS and I saw the full thing working then, so flow have no real excuse now.

Benchmarks / Re: OFFICIAL GATT 3DMark Leaderboard
« on: December 20, 2014, 03:20:04 PM »
Blasting to #1 with that score D2Ultima. What is the model of that laptop?

It's a Clevo P370SM3.

Benchmarks / Re: OFFICIAL GATT 3DMark Leaderboard
« on: December 19, 2014, 09:15:12 PM »
Might as well add my score O_O.

(watch how fast I lose top spot eh)

By the way fellas, I *DO* keep updating these guides, so feel free to check back on them now and then. I also wrote another guide which I'll link here and I'm adding all of them to my signature.

Mobile i7 CPU information guide

PC Gaming / Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare PC Multiplayer Review
« on: November 14, 2014, 12:31:34 PM »
The single-player should be split as a separate entity altogether, with separate pricing.

I care not one whit for COD multiplayer, so I won't be buying this, or future releases, until this is implemented.

...and STILL no dedicated servers?  in 2014?
Don't complain about 'netcode' when you WILLINGLY give Activision money for this drivel year after year.

I do think splitting SP and MP would be sensible, but the amount of work they put into SP they wouldn't wanna sell it as a standalone $15 or something.

As for people who give them money? People do that for far far more games than just CoD. Men still buying Ubisoft titles under pre-order and all.

Anyway, I know a few of the GATT men like to sit down with a little CoD now and then, so I linked it here. Glad you all enjoyed the review at least.

PC Gaming / Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare PC Multiplayer Review
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:06:48 PM »
As it says. I reviewed the multiplayer and did not touch the single player yet. Here's the video I put out today; in case anyone was considering purchasing for PC, you can use this to decide if you want to.

resolution doesn't matter much for games honestly. You might find the vRAM guide a great read too.

Honestly I'm a bit of a fan of SLI too. I sincerely believe no single GPU on this planet currently exists with enough power to satisfy me XD. And I *AM* counting desktop chips there. My dream desktop would be a 5960X with 32GB DDR4 3000MHz RAM and four GM200 Titan 2 chips with 12GB vRAM each or something.

Glad you found it useful. Remember to sticky this if you want. The vRAM guide is more detailed, interestingly enough. I wrote it and after writing it a large number of people gave me minor corrections or fixed minor assumptions I made and I ended up adding a large amount of data to it. It's like... twice as long or something I think XD.

Did you ACTUALLY read through it all? lol

Hello. Remembered we had a forum here, so I decided to come and officially link my guides here for you people who interested in all these newfangled things like SLI and how video RAM affects gaming. Please note, I DO keep updating the guides regularly as soon as I get more information/tech changes, so they're not stagnant. Last time I updated each was in october. The forum I wrote them on is LinusTechTips' forums, so you don't need an account to sign in and read.

Now I wrote these guides elsewhere and I REALLY do not feel like copying them over and editing them to exactly fit this forum, but you may want to sticky this thread so people can get to the information anytime they want. I would put it in the "announcements and guides" section, but nobody seems to go there and they ARE pertaining to GPUs so... yeah. Anyway, here we go.

The SLI Information Guide
The vRAM Information Guide

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 14, 2013, 07:43:41 AM »
Relax...I'm just presenting another option.

Interesting analogy...but a quad-core, 8-thread CPU is already so powerful that it's not worth the extra 200+ US to invest in a hexa-core.  My opinion, of course.

...and 'CPU-bound' is just that.  Adding more cores to the mix won't change much.  Clockspeed, however, has been proven time and again to make a much greater difference.
There is a rather small percentage of games that utilize 4 cores, and even less that utilize more than 4.  If it's a gaming PC primarily, why waste all that money?

I can guarantee you that 2 GTX 770s with a 4820K will outperform a 4930K with a single 780 Ti.

I'd rather put that extra money into something else that would make a much more tangible difference to my gaming experience, like a sound-card,
or a proper gaming headset, or even better peripherals.

Actually, they did do some tests on the effects on hexacores vs OC'd quadcores in BF3 in the past, and it did give substantial increases sometimes up to over 10fps on max with the same rigs. I would have to go hunting for the article though; it came out way before BF4 came out. Sometime a lot earlier this year. That's the only reason I started mentioning that since then. I was all "meh my i7-950 still good all I really need is a new video card" then they tested 3770K OC'd compared to 3930Ks and the 3930K mash up the test. Also, hyperthreading only helps you use the cores you have efficiently. It gives a nice boost, but it honestly doesn't beat the extra cores for programs that are MASSIVELY CPU hungry (like streaming ones) or CPU bound games. If you had to OC a 4820 to beat a 4930K @ 3.4GHz in a CPU-bound program where the program uses only 50% of any given CPU, your 4820 would need to be over 5GHz. It's even simple math too, like 4 x 5GHz / 2 = 10GHz to game, whereas 6 x 3.4 / 2 = 10.2GHz to the game. If you add the threads it works out to the same, 8 x 5 = 40/2 = 20, and 12 x 3.4 = 40.8/2 = 20.4.

And again, you're completely right about the set up you listed beating the performance in quite a few areas. It needs to be running at over 70% efficiency on both cards though for it to beat a single 780Ti though (the two 770s that is), but most games DO grant this, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 14, 2013, 03:06:55 AM »
There was a reason I put the 6-core, and no, OCing quadcores to high levels does NOT overstep the benefits of six-core machines when a game is CPU-bound.

1 - The reason the MOBO is so expensive is because it's got the chipset for the extreme sandy and extreme ivy bridge CPUs. Yeah, in almost every single game ever out there an i5-2500K is pretty much king, god, jesus, allah, buddha, whatever you want to call it. It ain't gonna be too weak for years. But not when you have CPU bound games. CPU-bound games will never USE your CPU to its fullest capacity. It will use say... half. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. The CPU clock speed and number of cores won't change. It will always use around half. If you OC your CPU, you get more mileage in the game because it will use half of more resources. Sure. But adding more cores will make the CPU-bound game rejoice with all heaven, as it has even more to use.
Think of it like this. You got 4 sandwiches. You're feeding Battlefield 3 the four sandwiches. BF3 will eat 1/2 of each sandwich, then say it's hungry. You OC your CPU, that's like making four BIGGER sandwiches so that when it eats 1/2 of each, it's more full. But then you add a 6-core. BF3 then eats 1/2 of SIX sandwiches. Even if they're smaller than your four bigger ones, 1/2 of 6 x 3.4 is better than 1/2 of 4 x 4.2. Thus, the game will allow your GPUs to do more work.

Now, AGAIN, I *only* listed the hexacore CPU because of the existence (and popularity) of those two CPU-bound games. And also, again, Watch Dogs' minimum and recommended requirements tend toward it being a CPU-bound game as well. And real men want watch dogs. Also, if he for some reason ever takes up livestreaming, a 6-core is going to make him extremely happy.

Again, if he's gonna go with a cheaper board and a regular non-extreme i7, then by all means. Go for what your build has. In fact, it'll benefit him more in most games. I still say 120Hz and later 3D gaming will benefit the higher resolution, and I LOVE my 120Hz screen mind you. I'm not going back to a 60Hz one. But either way, they're both methods he can choose from.

Again, I explained why I suggested at first let him get accustomed to high end gaming with a single card then later on run SLI if he wants or whatever, but it's up to him. Once he decides what he wants to get, we can tailor the builds to suit. If he doesn't care that much about BF3/BF4/Watch Dogs all running at bleeding edge specs at 120fps constant lookin all pretty and stuff, then cool. We could get him the trend with your build. If he wants to go with the basic foundation style I made that'll last him till like 2018 or so without needing an upgrade besides an SLI or maybe an 800/900 series GPU in it a couple years later, then that's cool too.

Also, like I don't mind differing opinions and all, but if I give explanations as to WHY I say some things and AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR OWN POINTS, I don't get why you all keep trying to re-prove your points. This is like the third time someone is telling me how 6-cores are worthless and I AGREE that they are for like 99% of the things.

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 13, 2013, 07:48:56 PM »
Okay. He said he could make to $2400, so I went with that in mind, and made a very strong yet very easy to upgrade machine for ANYTHING he could ever want to do. Including a monitor. It came up to under $2400 and most parts have free shipping to the USA and thus could probably work well with a skybox, but it might cost a little more to bring it down.

Unless I need to add keyboard and mice too, I'm also expecting him to at least have a headset or something of his own.

So if he wanna stick with that, CPU-bound games will have no problem (like BF3/BF4 and the possible upcoming watchdogs which looks like it might be CPU-bound itself) and all other games will be easy peasy to max, even the Crysis 3 he wanted (though at 1080p). But in return his 144Hz screen is going to be so smooth he'll love it, and like I said, if he in a year or two wants to get three screens, a second card and run some triple monitor 3D gaming and stuff, he's got the room to upgrade/change/etc, or he could just stay like that and enjoy himself as-is.

Good enough? ^_^.

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 12, 2013, 02:42:55 PM »
I have already seen that video; the ti at max settings on crysis 3 is barely playable - It does not consistently stay above 30 fps @ 1440p.

Considering that you'll have to spend another ~USD$800 for just that really doesn't justify the expenditure imo. Just the ability to crank all the settings up makes no difference if you can't get a reasonably playable frame rate, and busting the budget seems similarly pointless to me.

yeah, which is another reason (not counting the lack of refresh rates above 60Hz + lack of 3D gaming + more expense etc) that I am a little remiss about recommending 1440p for gaming right now. MOST games are fine, mind you, and many pretty games run fine at 1440p easily on even a single 780 non-Ti edition. BUT seeing as how some setups still struggle with the epitome of PC graphics even at 1080p (Skyrim + tons of mods, Crysis 3, battlefield 4 on single cards, planetside 2, etc. even though unoptimization of some games is the cause like in planetside 2) I rather get better performance from 1080p and possibly even get some good 3D gaming in than move to a higher resolution screen. That's my opinion though; some people place more importance on other things.

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 12, 2013, 01:10:59 PM »
1 - Don't buy an 840 or 840 Pro unless it's 256GB or larger. It has problems with smaller file sizes. If you want a better smaller SSD, a Plextor M5P is a better choice for it.

2 - If getting a 770, go for the 4GB version. If possible, grab a 780 or a 780Ti for best single card performance without going SLI. SLI isn't really a bad thing and can boost the hell out of a slightly struggling system, but it has tradeoffs that I would not recommend it be the FIRST thing you aim for, so best single card = win. IF you still want to get SLI, then I would quicker suggest two 780s over one 780Ti, but if you can get SLI 780Tis you can easily play your Crysis 3 at 1440p maxed out.

I'd like to see some support for these claims please. for 840 series 128GB drive.

Check the post I made just above this one for the video where a 780Ti can't max Crysis 3 at 1440p.

PC Gaming / Re: Building a PC
« on: November 12, 2013, 01:07:35 PM »
A 120 Hz monitor with 2 x 780 Ti is more than half of that 2000.

Why waste all that money if the PC isn't helping you MAKE money?

A 1440p  monitor with 2 x 770s will do just fine.   The 770 price/performance ratio right now is the best it can get.

I'd like to hear about some of these 'SLI tradeoffs', because as far as I'm concerned the only issue is increased power consumption.

Samsung Galaxy Note 2 | Omega v18 | SwiftKey | Tapatalk 4

Two 780Tis or something is the end result. Like, he could have that at the end of next year or something. If he buys a single 780Ti now and a 120Hz or 144Hz 23" or something screen that wouldn't crack $1k, and he could get the rest of the stuff for under another $1k, he should be good with that. Then, like I said, later on he can upgrade. I only suggested such a high end result BECAUSE he was already willing to spend so much. A single 780Ti is about as good as two 680s in SLI with maybe 75% usage on each card, so it's the ideal basic card. Even if he never upgrades to two, it should still be beyond amazing.

Also, he did suggest maxing Crysis 3 at 1440p, which even a single 780Ti isn't really able to do according to this video by tek syndicate here.

Finally, about SLI. Some games do not use SLI. They will run worse if you force SLI on. One such game is Deus Ex: Human Revolution Director's Cut. It will use up to 99% of one card of mine, sure, but if I force it to two cards, it actually runs WORSE though using 65% of each card on average. ENB and RCRN mods for Skyrim are other such games that refuse to use SLI unless you force it. Sometimes forcing it is a little tricky, and as I said in the case of Deus Ex, it actually results in WORSE performance.

Other games, while boosting from SLI, will not properly use all of SLI. It may use 60% of each card, and possibly get better performance than a single card, sure, but not by much. These games are relatively few, and most games will use 70% to 85% of each card while in SLI, and that's pretty fine and gives great boosts and all, but sometimes it is just not beneficial. It is NOT something that can be depended on for every single game there is. Also, as I previously mentioned, more than two monitors attached to the cards MUST result in a large desktop (I.E. if you fullscreen a game at say 1920 x 1080, your other two screens will go black). This means to use more than two monitors and still benefit as if you had two screens, you would need FOUR monitors. It's an added cost.

Also, if you install any new drivers, SLI is disabled requiring a restart, which isn't otherwise needed with new nVidia drivers since 245.xx if I remember correctly. If changing one card from Dedicated PhysX to regular SLI (and vice versa), it also requires the closing and restarting of a great many programs, which one would not think would normally be affected by this. Also, SLI cards are more difficult to overclock usually. For some reason, it seems to always be easier to push a single card higher in a system. Of course, mileage may vary per cards and per user's setup, but it's something to take note of.

All that being said and done, however, I *LIKE* SLI. I will continue to USE SLI. I even find it to be an extremely viable option for anyone. It just DOES have some drawbacks, and as a result there are users who refuse to SLI, ever. They'll buy the single strongest card available, call that georgie porgie pudding and pie and leave it be. It's up to you. I personally find the tradeoffs are FAR more apparent than the drawbacks, but I cannot deny that there are drawbacks.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal