Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Tech General Chat

2,640 replies to this topic
err5
  • err5

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2016
  • None

#2521

Posted 30 July 2016 - 12:29 AM

But I've actually found it to be faster on boot and shut down, which has taken me by surprise as they've claimed that with every generation since Windows 98 and it's always turned out to be bollocks, but this time they actually gon dunnit.

What OS is the boot and shutdown time compared to ?

Windows 10 free upgrade runs out in 22 hours
I have woken up on several occasions in cold sweats after having nightmares of running Windows 10

Am I making a mistake by not taking the free upgrade?


Nah. If you're happy with what you're running, then you've already won. Not everybody needs to upgrade, and I wish Microsoft got that through their head before trying to force people to do so. I tried Windows 10 twice, and both times I've run into issues that were not present on my older OS versions (8.1).

Well said, sir. Sometimes if something works fine, don't touch it. I can tell from experience that the laptop I'm using right now, which apart from games I use for important stuff such as college reports, works no matter what due to getting as few updates as possible - only the security ones matter (or if a software version reaches EOL).

Crokey
  • Crokey

    Builders Like Erections

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2003
  • Belize
  • Worst Tits 2015
    Best Poster [Sports] 2015
    Best Poster [Sports] 2014
    Worst Tits 2014
    Last ever poster in a public area on the old forum
    Best Llama 2016

#2522

Posted 30 July 2016 - 09:46 AM

But I've actually found it to be faster on boot and shut down, which has taken me by surprise as they've claimed that with every generation since Windows 98 and it's always turned out to be bollocks, but this time they actually gon dunnit.

What OS is the boot and shutdown time compared to ?

Windows 7 64bit, on my machine I'd say it's increased by about 30-40%

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2523

Posted 30 July 2016 - 10:32 AM

W10 is so fast to boot for me that I don't actually get to see the spinning wheel. I go straight from my motherboard splash screen into the Windows logon screen.
I think that's probably due to my M.2 drive though.
  • Kristian. likes this

err5
  • err5

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2016
  • None

#2524

Posted 30 July 2016 - 11:31 AM

But I've actually found it to be faster on boot and shut down, which has taken me by surprise as they've claimed that with every generation since Windows 98 and it's always turned out to be bollocks, but this time they actually gon dunnit.

What OS is the boot and shutdown time compared to ?


Windows 7 64bit, on my machine I'd say it's increased by about 30-40%


It seems like the system doesn't perform a true shutdown, but something between hibernation and sleeping mode. Can you compare reboot times ?

Ai®a©ob®a
  • Ai®a©ob®a

    General

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2013
  • NATO

#2525

Posted 31 July 2016 - 05:57 AM

Has any of you bought one of the new GTX cards? i am thinking of picking up the 1060, i was gonna get the 1070 before i heard about the 1060 coming out so i decided to wait.

 

my GTX is 750 so 1060 is gonna be a huge boost and it's only $250 a price i can afford.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2526

Posted 31 July 2016 - 06:25 AM

I've got a 1080. It's been absolutely flawless so far. Due to an Amazon mix-up I ended up paying far, far below the RRP (£519).

The 1060 offers serious bang-for-buck.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2527

Posted 02 August 2016 - 05:19 PM

$1200 for the new Titan X. Judging by some very early benchmarks I'd say there's no way in hell it's worth paying that much for one. You might as well burn your money then.

 

I'm waiting for the 1080 Ti or Volta (the latter might be due for a 2017 release, which is when I would plan to buy a new GPU).

  • 018361 likes this

018361
  • 018361

    "Bad characteristics covered in Christs blood"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • United-States

#2528

Posted 03 August 2016 - 12:41 AM

I just want to upgrade from my GTX 670. I would really like to be able to play games in 4k at a decent frame rate but alas, I am broke. 


Big Moist
  • Big Moist

    you've gotta be stirring my pasta.

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2015
  • None
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#2529

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:11 AM

Admittedly, the 1060 is pretty impressive considering you can get one for $250 if you're patient. I can't imagine it will age all that well, however.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2530

Posted 03 August 2016 - 06:54 AM

I would really like to be able to play games in 4k at a decent frame rate


Then you need a 1080 at a minimum.
  • 018361 likes this

018361
  • 018361

    "Bad characteristics covered in Christs blood"

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • United-States

#2531

Posted 03 August 2016 - 07:08 AM

 

I would really like to be able to play games in 4k at a decent frame rate


Then you need a 1080 at a minimum.

 

I may be able to afford one if my brother ever pays me back the money that he owes me. I gave it him so that he could buy a new guitar. 


Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2532

Posted 03 August 2016 - 01:26 PM Edited by Kristian., 03 August 2016 - 01:26 PM.

A 1070 will work fine in 4K depending on what you mean by decent frame rate and what settings you want to play on.

 

While we are on the topic of GPUs, it looks like the Titan X is a flop considering its price. Who in their right mind would pay that much for one? The return on investment is crap. I hope Volta comes out by this time next year or the next cards in the Pascal series.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2533

Posted 03 August 2016 - 01:56 PM

Tbh the Titan was never really designed as a gaming GPU; they're a bridge between ranges like the Tesla and consumer-grade hardware.

By "playable" I typically mean consistent 4K60 at high or Ultra settings across an outright majority of modern titles, which the 1070 can't manage IMO. Even the 1080 is fairly borderline.
  • Kristian. likes this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2534

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:34 PM

4K gaming is still not really a thing right now, especially if you don't have a big budget. Personally, I'm getting a 4K monitor this year but I will be playing new games in 1440p hoping it won't scale too horribly. I just want that extra real estate for non-gaming stuff and older games will do just fine in 4K 60.

 

I am currently looking at a 43" inch Philips monitor (BDM4350UC/00) that looks really decent for the money (~$700). I mean who else is making monitors this huge?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2535

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:39 PM

2560x1440 scaling to 3840x2160 isn't great. Better than 1080 but it'll be pretty fuzzy if you're used to native 2k or 4k. Especially on a big screen with a low relative pixel density compared to conventional 2k monitors.

I can think of no practical reasons to buy a monitor that large for PC use, especially for gaming use. Except perhaps for bragging rights.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2536

Posted 03 August 2016 - 02:50 PM Edited by Kristian., 03 August 2016 - 02:54 PM.

The thing is that anything below 40" might look terrible in certain situations, like reading text and stuff. I don't want to use any UI scaling or anything like that and the pixel density is similar to my 1080p 23" display, so there's not much of a loss there. Also, older games should look great on it running at native 4K resolution.

 

It's not just for bragging rights. I want something that doesn't feel small and I tend to sit away from the monitor far enough that it should look good in most situations. I'm used to upscaling in games to some extent since I still play games on my Xbox 360 and even the old Xbox.

 

Edit: Actually, the PPI is slightly higher for a 43" 4K monitor compared to my current 22.5" 1080p monitor, so it makes perfect sense for native res.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2537

Posted 03 August 2016 - 04:31 PM

Suggested minimum viewing distance for a 43" TV is 183cm, or 6ft. Do you really intend to sit six feed from your monitor?

The reason very few companies do monitors, rather than TVs, that size, is because they're typically not designed for normal monitor use. To go on the wall of an office, yes, but not as actual monitors.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2538

Posted 03 August 2016 - 05:00 PM

True but not really relevant. What does that suggested distance even mean? That it will otherwise not be "retina display"? When did people start obsessing about pixel density anyway? 22-23" gave you less density yet no one was really complaining back when 1080p was the standard.

 

Smaller 4K monitors with larger pixel densities are almost useless for general productivity (scaling sucks and it drains your GPU resources) and for some people 34" is not enough for a perfectly usable display. I think 43" is the sweet spot. Plenty of PPI and thus it should provide text that's about as readable as it is on a typical 1080p screen. I've seen people on YouTube doing this already and they are very satisfied. I think I will be too.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2539

Posted 03 August 2016 - 05:36 PM

True but not really relevant. What does that suggested distance even mean?

Part of it is to do with the physical amount of the screen you can actually see given the field of view and field of focus of the human eye. But I got my numbers wrong, for a 4K display it's actually a little over four feet for a 43" display.

When did people start obsessing about pixel density anyway? 22-23" gave you less density yet no one was really complaining back when 1080p was the standard.

Pixel density and fidelity sort of go hand in hand. I'm not sure I see the logic in quadrupling the size of the screen, with all the implications that has, for no actual gain in fidelity. From the optimal viewing distances and all else such as panel quality being equal, a 1080p monitor and a 4k monitor with the same pixel density will look exactly the same. It's just the latter will be massively more costly to buy and drive; in fact in order to get the same frame performance from the same pixel density the 4k monitor will actually look worse because it will require sacrifices elsewhere in performance.

Smaller 4K monitors with larger pixel densities are almost useless for general productivity

They're absolutely not; 34-38" is widely accepted as the "sweet spot" in size and pixel density for 4K monitors. Hence pretty much every single professional-grade 4K monitor on the market coming in that size range. We've got some at work; the pixel densities are similar to 25-27" 2K screens which is again the "sweet spot" for professional grade 2K monitors. The reason you're struggling to find many options meeting your requirements is becasue they're very, very niche.

(scaling sucks and it drains your GPU resources)

These are also problems for larger monitors, particularly the latter.

Plenty of PPI and thus it should provide text that's about as readable as it is on a typical 1080p screen.

I know it's a very subjective thing but I've never had an issue with 110PPI, which is the density of a 2K 27" monitor. It's what, 10% more than the pixel density of the monitor you're proposing.

I'm not trying to discourage you or anything; people have different interests and spend their money on different things, but it strike me as a serious amount of money to spend, and performance hit to take, for exactly no tangible benefit.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2540

Posted 03 August 2016 - 06:19 PM Edited by Kristian., 03 August 2016 - 06:19 PM.

Most decent and smaller 4K displays go for similar prices or higher. The one I'm after is probably sourcing its panel from the 4K TV industry hence the reduced price or who knows why 4K monitors are so overpriced anyway. For general productivity it makes sense. It's also a bit more immersive for gaming due to the larger size, even if you take into account the downsides. I am not actually planning on playing new games in 4K for the most part but I will be able to play a ton of older games at native res and 60 FPS.

 

The benefits boil down to productivity and immersion. For instance, FL Studio (and most video editing software I've used) looks small in 1080p. 1440p would hardly be an upgrade in that regard. 4K, on the other hand, will give me a ton of space to work with. The immersion thing is mostly about size. Staring at a huge image makes me feel like I'm there and most people probably feel that way too, but they want different things (higher pixel density, higher refresh rates, etc). You can't have everything. I'm just going for what I think will provide the best experience for me.

 

Also, the field of view and focus thing is something I am aware of. It doesn't seem like a big disadvantage. I can't see the entire image on my current monitor in focus either. It's going to be worse on a bigger screen, sure, but that will be somewhat mitigated by sitting a bit further away from the screen. It's also a downside that's outweighed by the benefits in my opinion.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2541

Posted 03 August 2016 - 06:54 PM

Fair enough, but I don't "get" the idea of 2k "hardly" being an upgrade from 1080p. It's nearly double the pixel count. Have you actually used a 2K screen for work-type activity?

To be honest, your use case is pretty much begging for multi-monitor solutions. The lucky ones of us at work run 3 27" Dell 2K monitors and from a "I need lots of screen space for work" perspective that's absolutely perfect. Both cheaper and more usable for multi-tasking than a single massive 4K.

Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ Anything 80's ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award
    Draw Contest Winner 2016

#2542

Posted 03 August 2016 - 07:21 PM Edited by Andreaz1, 03 August 2016 - 07:22 PM.

A 43" TV as a monitor on your desk?? Say goodbye to your neck as you'll be snapping it back and forth as if watching a game of table tennis all day. We have a huge ass 42" TV in the basement and I can't even imagine the pain both in my muscles and eyes of sitting that close to it.

On another note I bought those K550's after your praise of them sivis. Now I've got my hopes up for them. Should have them by tomorrow.
  • sivispacem likes this

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2543

Posted 04 August 2016 - 12:40 PM Edited by Kristian., 04 August 2016 - 12:49 PM.

Fair enough, but I don't "get" the idea of 2k "hardly" being an upgrade from 1080p. It's nearly double the pixel count. Have you actually used a 2K screen for work-type activity?

To be honest, your use case is pretty much begging for multi-monitor solutions. The lucky ones of us at work run 3 27" Dell 2K monitors and from a "I need lots of screen space for work" perspective that's absolutely perfect. Both cheaper and more usable for multi-tasking than a single massive 4K.

I mean an 170% (ish) improvement is not that big a deal compared to 4K which is 400% bigger considering that 1080p looks really small to me already.

 

I would go well above $700 even with a pair of decent 1440p monitors. Three will set me back more than $1000. Multiple displays are like multiple GPU configs: they are great when they work, but in plenty of situations they either work poorly or they don't work at all (e.g. some games don't support multiple monitors; this applies to multiple GPUs as well).

You're probably suggesting that I should game on a single monitor and do the other stuff on two or three. Honestly, even if I had the money I probably still wouldn't go for a multiple monitor solution. I don't see the appeal in it unless you really really need space (and in that case I would go for multiple 4K monitors). I think the ideal situation is always the biggest resolution you can get on a single monitor and an appropriate size to make text readable. For gaming, it's a subjective thing. I find an image more immersive and more convincing when it's bigger, regardless of what resolution I run the game at. That's the most important aspect for me.

 

@Andreaz1 I'm not sure what you mean. With the desk I'm planning to buy, I will be sitting roughly 80 cm away from the monitor (or more if I'm using a gamepad). Why would I strain my neck or hurt my eyes?

 

 

Edit: I have a question regarding overclocking a 4790K which I plan to buy. My motherboard (GIGABYTE GA-B85-HD3) doesn't officially support overclocking it seems but it does have a feature that allows me to play around with the multiplier if I have a K CPU. Does that mean that I could potentially overclock one or at least set the multiplier to 44, which would give me the turbo boost frequency, but all the time (on all cores)? I think the turbo boost feature only works on one core at a time, so if I can set the multiplier to the maximum value that would potentially give me more performance maybe. Here's a screenshot of the BIOS settings:

 

mQkNtI6.png


X S
  • X S

    Confirmation Bias Approved

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2013
  • United-States
  • Miss Los Santos Host Extraordinaire

#2544

Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:09 PM

Edit: I have a question regarding overclocking a 4790K which I plan to buy. My motherboard (GIGABYTE GA-B85-HD3) doesn't officially support overclocking it seems but it does have a feature that allows me to play around with the multiplier if I have a K CPU. Does that mean that I could potentially overclock one or at least set the multiplier to 44, which would give me the turbo boost frequency, but all the time (on all cores)? I think the turbo boost feature only works on one core at a time, so if I can set the multiplier to the maximum value that would potentially give me more performance maybe. Here's a screenshot of the BIOS settings:

 

Old school overclocking?  I surely won't miss that.  I'd suggest trying to find someone with similar specifications and then using them in your PC.  It's more nuanced than the new OC profiles, but you should be able to overclock it regardless of the mobo.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2545

Posted 04 August 2016 - 01:43 PM

I would go well above $700 even with a pair of decent 1440p monitors.

The 24" ASUS I have my eye on us under £200. Even Dell Ultrasharps in 25" or 27" float around the £300 mark. That's excluding the £900 GPU you'll need to drive it. Even the £1200 Titan X isn't reliably getting 4k60 across the board.

Multiple displays are like multiple GPU configs: they are great when they work, but in plenty of situations they either work poorly or they don't work at all (e.g. some games don't support multiple monitors; this applies to multiple GPUs as well).

The suggestion was that you used multiple monitors for multi-tasking work, and a single one for gaming. That's the go-to solution for people who actually do multitask.

I will be sitting roughly 80 cm away from the monitor (or more if I'm using a gamepad). Why would I strain my neck or hurt my eyes?

You're going to buy a 43" monitor and sit 80cm away from it? I sit about 60cm from a 22", that's a "normal" viewing distance.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2546

Posted 04 August 2016 - 02:27 PM Edited by Kristian., 04 August 2016 - 02:30 PM.

Hmm. Maybe I should look for a different desk. It still doesn't sound bad though. You aren't ever able to focus on the entire surface of the monitor, no matter the size, so what's the big deal?

 

My 980 Ti will do just fine in 1440p for a while, in new games. I might get a new GPU next year though, but not for 4K necessarily. On my next build (which I will probably start in 2018) I will focus solely on 4K, most likely by buying two GPUs. This monitor that I plan to buy will be even more useful then. Don't forget that I also get to play older games in 4K, which is about as important as playing newer games for me. I'm also getting an Xbox Scorpio next year but I doubt that it will be native res 4K regardless of what Microsoft is claiming.

 

Edit: I'm not planning on using it for multitasking per se. It's mostly about having more space inside a program's window (i.e. more video\audio tracks fit on the screen in a video editor or DAW, which makes projects easier to manage).


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#2547

Posted 04 August 2016 - 02:33 PM

Hmm. Maybe I should look for a different desk. It still doesn't sound bad though. You aren't ever able to focus on the entire surface of the monitor, no matter the size, so what's the big deal?

It's about 65% of the recommended viewing distance of a 4K monitor that size. I think you're going to struggle to game efficiently on something that large and that close.

I reckon with a 1080p 22" at about 60cm you can focus on perhaps a quarter of the screen at any given time with enough clarity to read normal text, and the whole screen with enough clarity to determine objects without needing to refocus. I just can't see you doing that with your proposed monitor.

Go to a TV store, find a 42" 4K and stand at arm's length from it. That's what you're proposing you do day in, day out. I can pretty much guarantee you will hate it within 5 minutes.
  • Kristian. likes this

Andreaz1
  • Andreaz1

    ♪ Anything 80's ♫

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2010
  • Sweden
  • Helpfulness Award
    Draw Contest Winner 2016

#2548

Posted 04 August 2016 - 03:20 PM

It's obvious that we won't be able to sway you on this but I'm honestly very curious what you will say after using a setup like that for a few days.

Anyhoo, got my K550's today. They're even massiver than I thought they would be but apparently they are the MKII's of the model.

Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    Dealux (Πvar.ΣΓ01122599)

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#2549

Posted 04 August 2016 - 04:14 PM

I'll look for another desk. Barnacules has three 50" or 55" TVs for monitors. He doesn't seem to mind it but I do recall him having a large desk, so that's important.


SilverRST
  • SilverRST

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • None

#2550

Posted 04 August 2016 - 05:37 PM Edited by SilverRST, 04 August 2016 - 05:38 PM.

Titan X Pascal does €1310, which is damn expensive than the last Titan X. Crazy prices, man.

nVidia has been bumping up the prices since AMD can't compete in the high-end range and yet AMD Vega won't come soon enough.

By the time Vega gets released to compete 1070/1080, nVidia will already have faster GPU's up their sleeve.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users