Getting a new Computer

[OverTheBelow]

You guys should definitely take a look at the h.264 format. I render all of my youtube videos in 1080p and they rarely exceed 100mb (but that is deliberate to cater for my 25kb/s upload speed!). I edit & render it using the student version of Adobe Premiere CS5.

 

Take a look at the quality of this video in 1080p:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Diubehq9gc0

 

The file size is only 89MB. Original FRAPS recording was over 3GB.

 

Drifting off topic here.. perhaps you should make a new thread in the Tech section about this or something.

[Andrew]

This should really belong in PC / Tech chat, I'll move it there.

[nightwalker83]

2027MB resource usage? How do you get that much? I can only get 734MB and that is using commandlines.

[OverTheBelow]

2027MB resource usage? How do you get that much? I can only get 734MB and that is using commandlines.

"-availablevidmem 5" would probably do the trick.

[Exxon]

OverTheBelow, is your name cammz3 on YouTube?

 

But where do you see resource usage of 2027 MB?

Do you mean available resource thingy? That's because I have a GFX card with 2 GB of VRAM

[nightwalker83]

2027MB resource usage? How do you get that much? I can only get 734MB and that is using commandlines.

"-availablevidmem 5" would probably do the trick.

Not even close I had to set

 

availablevidmem 1000

 

 

I gave me a max of 2228MB Maxed out everything although, the game lagged afterwards.

[OverTheBelow]

That's because it will be using your slow system RAM for anything it can't fit in the fast dedicated video RAM.

 

 

@Exxon: yes

[nightwalker83]

 

But where do you see resource usage of 2027 MB?

Do you mean available resource thingy? That's because I have a GFX card with 2 GB of VRAM

On the screenshot it says 2027MB I think that is the resource usage.

[Exxon]

@Exxon: yes

I'll be watching a lot of video's this evening

[radioman]

 

Once again and the very last time - when people want to play, they usually don't want their game hauling its ass, they want to do so comfortably. Low end cards usually leave people disappointed, usually because someone said those cards are just fine for gaming. While they aren't.

I was reading up on the HD5470 on notebookcheck.net, and I strolled down to where is had the review for my model laptop-which is a HP Pavilion dv7- and it said the 5470 is comparable to the Nvidia Geforce 8600 and that that model has an Intel GMA HD card with DDR3 memory AND a HD5470 with GDDR5 memory, as seen here from that site...

Intel Core i5:

 

460M: The Core i5-460M has only 3 MB L3 Cache (compared to the I7-620M) and clocks between 2.53-2.8 GHz (Turbo Mode). Thanks to Hyperthreading, 4 threads can be processed simultaneously. An integrated graphics card (GMA HD) and a DDR3 memory controller are also included in the package.

 

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470: Entry level DirectX 11 chip with GDDR5 support but only 80 shader cores. Supports Eyefinity (up to 4 monitors) and 8-ch HD audio over HDMI. Performance on par with the old GeForce 8600M GT.

 

So, since it says that card has DX11 and GDDR5 vram, PLUS it has an Intel GMA HD, it should run games quite well, since there are two(2) video cards? Also, just curious, Wouldn't games use both video cards if it tried to exceed the resources on one?-as I have read on here about people having two video cards in their systems and getting improved performance on games?-Just curious(and please explain in details and politely if these are true or not)? Thanks. It also says that that model laptop is what it called a "Desktop Replacement"-so that should mean improved performance? Just curious on what the difference between a Normal laptop and a Desktop replacement laptop is?

 

@Exxon, I will get a video on Youtube later tonight-you'll know it's my channel, as my username there is almost like the one here...

Edited August 12, 2011 by radioman

[YankeesPwnMets]

 

So, since it says that card has DX11 and GDDR5 vram, PLUS it has an Intel GMA HD, it should run games quite well, since there are two(2) video cards? Also, just curious, Wouldn't games use both video cards if it tried to exceed the resources on one?-as I have read on here about people having two video cards in their systems and getting improved performance on games?-Just curious(and please explain in details and politely if these are true or not)? Thanks. It also says that that model laptop is what it called a "Desktop Replacement"-so that should mean improved performance? Just curious on what the difference between a Normal laptop and a Desktop replacement laptop is?

 

@Exxon, I will get a video on Youtube later tonight-you'll know it's my channel, as my username there is almost like the one here...

No, it wouldn't use both cards and if it did, the Intel GPU would just slow down the original card. It's like with PhysX

 

You have a GTX 580 and a slow card like an 8600GT for PhysX. If you used just the GTX 580, you would actually get better performance then tying the 580 down with a 8600GT for PhysX. An Intel HD GPU coupled with any discrete GPU will definitely slow down performance.

 

Also, SLI and Crossfire are completely different then tying an Intel GPU to say a Radeon 6570. Crossfire/SLI will normally only improve games that run slowly with only one card. For ex, if you are running BFBC2 with five 1080P monitors, and you can only get 15FPS with a single Radeon 6970, then adding another card should give you around twice the performance. However, a variety of factors can affect this, and in games like GTAIV's case, Crossfire/SLI scaling is horrible. Some games scale very well with dual GPU configurations. Some games hate dual GPU.

[leik oh em jeez!]

No, it wouldn't use both cards and if it did, the Intel GPU would just slow down the original card. It's like with PhysX

 

You have a GTX 580 and a slow card like an 8600GT for PhysX. If you used just the GTX 580, you would actually get better performance then tying the 580 down with a 8600GT for PhysX. An Intel HD GPU coupled with any discrete GPU will definitely slow down performance.

 

Also, SLI and Crossfire are completely different then tying an Intel GPU to say a Radeon 6570. Crossfire/SLI will normally only improve games that run slowly with only one card. For ex, if you are running BFBC2 with five 1080P monitors, and you can only get 15FPS with a single Radeon 6970, then adding another card should give you around twice the performance. However, a variety of factors can affect this, and in games like GTAIV's case, Crossfire/SLI scaling is horrible. Some games scale very well with dual GPU configurations. Some games hate dual GPU.

Correct answer, wrong explanation. using the 8600 for PhysX would slow down performance because of PhysX, not because of the 8600. Which still has nothing to do with this because you can't run PhysX using Intel graphics.

 

 

The Intel graphics will NOT speed up games, but it means you'll already have an output or two for running extra monitors.

[YankeesPwnMets]

No, it wouldn't use both cards and if it did, the Intel GPU would just slow down the original card. It's like with PhysX

 

You have a GTX 580 and a slow card like an 8600GT for PhysX. If you used just the GTX 580, you would actually get better performance then tying the 580 down with a 8600GT for PhysX. An Intel HD GPU coupled with any discrete GPU will definitely slow down performance.

 

Also, SLI and Crossfire are completely different then tying an Intel GPU to say a Radeon 6570. Crossfire/SLI will normally only improve games that run slowly with only one card. For ex, if you are running BFBC2 with five 1080P monitors, and you can only get 15FPS with a single Radeon 6970, then adding another card should give you around twice the performance. However, a variety of factors can affect this, and in games like GTAIV's case, Crossfire/SLI scaling is horrible. Some games scale very well with dual GPU configurations. Some games hate dual GPU.

Correct answer, wrong explanation. using the 8600 for PhysX would slow down performance because of PhysX, not because of the 8600. Which still has nothing to do with this because you can't run PhysX using Intel graphics.

 

 

The Intel graphics will NOT speed up games, but it means you'll already have an output or two for running extra monitors.

I'm trying to use an example where tying a slower graphics card with a faster one actually slows down performance. It's hard to do it with anything other then using PhysX as an example

[OverTheBelow]

 

Once again and the very last time - when people want to play, they usually don't want their game hauling its ass, they want to do so comfortably. Low end cards usually leave people disappointed, usually because someone said those cards are just fine for gaming. While they aren't.

I was reading up on the HD5470 on notebookcheck.net, and I strolled down to where is had the review for my model laptop-which is a HP Pavilion dv7- and it said the 5470 is comparable to the Nvidia Geforce 8600 and that that model has an Intel GMA HD card with DDR3 memory AND a HD5470 with GDDR5 memory, as seen here from that site...

Intel Core i5:

 

460M: The Core i5-460M has only 3 MB L3 Cache (compared to the I7-620M) and clocks between 2.53-2.8 GHz (Turbo Mode). Thanks to Hyperthreading, 4 threads can be processed simultaneously. An integrated graphics card (GMA HD) and a DDR3 memory controller are also included in the package.

 

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470: Entry level DirectX 11 chip with GDDR5 support but only 80 shader cores. Supports Eyefinity (up to 4 monitors) and 8-ch HD audio over HDMI. Performance on par with the old GeForce 8600M GT.

 

So, since it says that card has DX11 and GDDR5 vram, PLUS it has an Intel GMA HD, it should run games quite well, since there are two(2) video cards? Also, just curious, Wouldn't games use both video cards if it tried to exceed the resources on one?-as I have read on here about people having two video cards in their systems and getting improved performance on games?-Just curious(and please explain in details and politely if these are true or not)? Thanks. It also says that that model laptop is what it called a "Desktop Replacement"-so that should mean improved performance? Just curious on what the difference between a Normal laptop and a Desktop replacement laptop is?

 

@Exxon, I will get a video on Youtube later tonight-you'll know it's my channel, as my username there is almost like the one here...

The 5470 mobility is comparable to an 8600M GT, which is actually quite a bit slower than a standard, desktop 8600 GT. Intel graphics cannot be fully used in conjunction with a discrete card in games, it just allows the laptop to turn off the 8600 when not gaming to save battery life.

 

DX11 capabilities, eyefinity and GDDR5 technology are all pretty useless if the GPU itself is slow - they usually throw those specs on there to convince consumers that it is good for gaming and thus get sales in the lowend market. The name "desktop replacement" is also probably just a marketing term used by HP.

 

 

And just so you know - I have nothing against you, it just got on my nerves when you kept posting the same benchmarks over and over. Anyone that is interested in tech & computers (not by Apple!) has respect from me.

Edited August 13, 2011 by OverTheBelow

[Exxon]

 

Anyone that is interested in tech & computers (not by Apple!) has respect from me. 

I just saw I'm on your respect list in your profile, wow!!

[nightwalker83]

Anyone that is interested in tech & computers (not by Apple!) has respect from me.

Does that include running a hackintosh? That is what I've done.

[leik oh em jeez!]

I'm trying to use an example where tying a slower graphics card with a faster one actually slows down performance. It's hard to do it with anything other then using PhysX as an example

But it won't slow it down. It won't do anything. PhysX is about the only thing where where non-identical cards work to render the same image. But even though they work in parallel, they're not working on the same thing. PhysX is purely there for physics calculations, where as the main card(s) are there to actually render the image.

[radioman]

@Exxon, as promised, here's a video of IV on my PC and it is uploaded to my Youtube channel:

 

In my opinion, it is pretty darn smooth and the ONLY real fps drops I get are in the bottom part of the first island(around the Hove Beach area) the rest is fine...For the record, I normally get a pretty steady 30fps, however, when recording with Fraps, it tends to dip to 22fps(17-19 in and around Hove Beach), so, this is not really a true proof of how well the game runs as it is normal for the fps to dip when fraps is used? But since I am used to playing SA with 5-15fps(on my old XP Home laptop), 22-30fps seems very fluid and smooth...

 

I think that the main reason my definition of running the game "optimally" differs from most people here, is cause I am used to playing games on minimum specs/at below minimum specs, as my first PC was just at minimum for III and VC and below minimum for SA and yet those games were played just fine-beat the game 100% a few times on each of those games and quite a few turns in SA's Chain Game on that PC, and those specs were: XP Home SP2, AMD Sempron 798MHZ, 256MB Ram, a VIA/SIS video card with 32MB of VRAM, and yet games were pretty smooth, as seen here: This video is on my old XP Home laptop, that has the specs in this paragraph...to prove that sometimes PC specs are not everything to getting games to run optimally...

 

 

And just so you know - I have nothing against you, it just got on my nerves when you kept posting the same benchmarks over and over. Anyone that is interested in tech & computers (not by Apple!) has respect from me

 

I have pretty much NO knowledge of Apple computers-I only know Windows PC's...I really should start using photos and/or videos to back up my quotes, so this problem does not happen again...I also understand that everyone has their bad days...I have nothing against you, or Mkay82, or Exxon, etc. as I know you guys know what you are talking about in regards to IV and EFLC...I was mostly trying to say that the games can run just fine on lower video cards-the "top of the line" cards are not always necessary to obtain a "playable" fps-as seen in the second video above for SA...It's really all boils down to what and how you are used to playing games-and since I started out on a lot lower end PC than I have now, it would explain why I don't really have High expectations of high fps when I am playing games and why Low settings are just fine for me..plus the fact that i'm a little "old fashioned" would explain why I don't always have to have the latest and greatest technology-after all, I still have and use Records(LP's), Cassettes(both VCR and Audio cassettes) and still use CD's-have not really got into the whole Ipod/MP3 player craze-

[OverTheBelow]

Damn, how can you consider that smooth? It's horrible! You could probably reclaim some performance by turning off shadow density (it really, really isn't worth the performance hit). Also, you should try updating to patch 4 for better performance and customisability of graphics options. Heck, make two copies of your game directory so you can play both unpatched and patch 4 at the same time. But like you said if you're fine with it then there is not point fixing what isn't broken. Personally, I can't stand anything less than 60fps constant on my gaming rig and will reduce settings to keep it at that.

 

How well does it run during a rainy day in the middle of Algonquin? Even my rig slows down to around 45fps during bad weather in this game.

 

 

And vinyl records are the way to go for the best audio quality, man. Cassettes however - definitely not.

 

 

@Exxon: Been there for a little while now.

Edited August 13, 2011 by OverTheBelow

[Stinky12]

Adding a graphic card dedicated to physX does improve performance in PhysX aware games.

I got a HD5850 (ATi so no PhysX) and when playing Alice:MR with PhysX set to high @1920x1200, battles and using the pepper grinder

brings the game to a crawl.

When I finally got myself a GT240 for dedicated PhysX, playing Alice:MR with the same setting as before result in no lag and game play was extremely smooth.

 

Here is another physX aware game: Batman Arkham Asylum

 

You can see with a single GTX 260 by itself, you get a average FPS or 42.

Adding a cheap card like the 9500GT for dedicated PhysX can yield in a huge performance boost.

From 42FPS up to 61FPS.

[radioman]

@overthebelow, I guess it's because I am used to playing SA on my old XP laptop at 10-15fps. But Thanks for the tip on turning off Shadow Density..About Patch 4, I was planning on trying that, but I haven't been able to find the Download for it-the only one I have found is the last two(Patch 6 and 7)...So, where can I find Patch 4? Also, Why does IV and EFLC share the same settings, when they are on separate discs-I mean when I run IV, play for a while, then exit out and then the next time I go to play EFLC it is the exact same settings as IV and vice versa when going back to IV..? Also, would there be any performance hits on EFLC if I Patch that game too? Although, I do get 70+fps on SA though and 90+ on VC-I haven't tried III yet on this PC, but on my other PC's, VC usually runs better than III does-even though it is an older game.

 

Also, Do you have any suggestions on a new Video card for my desktop?-it is an Acer Aspire M1100-B1410A with a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core @ 2.10GHZ, 3GB DDR2 Ram, and has an ATI Radeon X1250 with 1407mb vram and Vista Home Premium SP2 32-bit...And do you think the Processor will hold back performance on a new video card? If so, what would be a suitable processor(possibly a Quad core) for an upgrade without having to get a new motherboard?

[OverTheBelow]

 

@overthebelow, I guess it's because I am used to playing SA on my old XP laptop at 10-15fps. But Thanks for the tip on turning off Shadow Density..About Patch 4, I was planning on trying that, but I haven't been able to find the Download for it-the only one I have found is the last two(Patch 6 and 7)...So, where can I find Patch 4? Also, Why does IV and EFLC share the same settings, when they are on separate discs-I mean when I run IV, play for a while, then exit out and then the next time I go to play EFLC it is the exact same settings as IV and vice versa when going back to IV..? Also, would there be any performance hits on EFLC if I Patch that game too? Although, I do get 70+fps on SA though and 90+ on VC-I haven't tried III yet on this PC, but on my other PC's, VC usually runs better than III does-even though it is an older game.

 

Patch 4

 

The thing with GTA4 sharing the same settings file was actually changed/fixed in the EFLC patch. You'll definitely see an improvement in performance if you install that one because it also fixes a framerate issue when you're near water.

 

 

Also, Do you have any suggestions on a new Video card for my desktop?-it is an Acer Aspire M1100-B1410A with a AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core @ 2.10GHZ, 3GB DDR2 Ram, and has an ATI Radeon X1250 with 1407mb vram and Vista Home Premium SP2 32-bit...And do you think the Processor will hold back performance on a new video card? If so, what would be a suitable processor(possibly a Quad core) for an upgrade without having to get a new motherboard?

A 5670 would be a good card provided your power supply can handle it. I wouldn't be surprised if your current processor bottlenecked it on some games though. For an affordable & fairly fast new processor upgrade, a AMD Phenom II X4 955 would probably do alot of good for you. Make sure your motherboard has a PCI-E slot and that your power supply is capable enough (500W+ if it is a brandless one..). If not you'll have to replace that too.

[radioman]

Thanks for the Patch 4 download for IV and thanks for the tips on the upgrades for my desktop..It says on this site that this model desktop has a 250 watt power supply, so, would that be enough for the 5670 1GB model? Also, Is there any big differences between that card and the 6670?-Cause there is only like a $14 difference in price between the two ($91.88 vs. $107.00) Here. It says on the second link, that the 5670 requires no external power supply? On the first link of the desktop review, all it says for the motherboard is that it is an AMD 690G.? Also, just curious, on the AMD Phenom X4, What is the difference between the Regular and the Black Edition? I mean, it is only a =http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_constraint=0&ic=48_0&Find.x=0&Find.y=0&Find=Find&_ta=1&search_query=amd%20phenom%20ii%20x4%20quad-core&_tt=amd pheno]$20 price difference here, between the two for the 3.4GHZ/3.5GHZ(Black Edition)..Would one of those fit the motherboard on my desktop-first link for easy reference on the model of my desktop?

 

I just installed Patch 4 for IV, and the performance is better, but is it normal that it moves your save games from the Appdata folder to the Documents folder?-lol

Edited August 14, 2011 by radioman

[OverTheBelow]

You'll need to replace that power supply first for any sort of upgrade. This one is high quality and is also fairly cheap: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16817207013

 

The 6670 is a slight bit faster, so if you think the extra money is worth it then go with it. It doesn't need an extra power source from the power supply (like most mid-high end graphics cards these days), it just runs soley off the power supplied by the PCI-E slot. For the quad core, go for the non-black edition since I doubt you'll be overclocking and its cheaper.

 

If you get that new power supply, you could go for an even higher-end graphics card for even more performance (provided you have the extra cash), such as a hd 6870 or gtx 560.

 

You'll have to find out your exact motherboard model, otherwise we wont know what socket type it is and/or if it has a PCI-E slot.

Edited August 14, 2011 by OverTheBelow

[YankeesPwnMets]

Adding a graphic card dedicated to physX does improve performance in PhysX aware games.

I got a HD5850 (ATi so no PhysX) and when playing Alice:MR with PhysX set to high @1920x1200, battles and using the pepper grinder

brings the game to a crawl.

When I finally got myself a GT240 for dedicated PhysX, playing Alice:MR with the same setting as before result in no lag and game play was extremely smooth.

 

Here is another physX aware game: Batman Arkham Asylum

<images>

 

You can see with a single GTX 260 by itself, you get a average FPS or 42.

Adding a cheap card like the 9500GT for dedicated PhysX can yield in a huge performance boost.

From 42FPS up to 61FPS.

Those are pretty good PhysX cards being used. The example I'm trying to show is using a ultra high end card like a GTX 580 or GTX 590 and then tying it down with something extremely slow like a GeForce 8600GT. When that happens, you are better off just using a single card instead of using the 8600GT for PhysX

[OverTheBelow]

Adding a graphic card dedicated to physX does improve performance in PhysX aware games.

I got a HD5850 (ATi so no PhysX) and when playing Alice:MR with PhysX set to high @1920x1200, battles and using the pepper grinder

brings the game to a crawl.

When I finally got myself a GT240 for dedicated PhysX, playing Alice:MR with the same setting as before result in no lag and game play was extremely smooth.

 

Here is another physX aware game: Batman Arkham Asylum

<images>

 

You can see with a single GTX 260 by itself, you get a average FPS or 42.

Adding a cheap card like the 9500GT for dedicated PhysX can yield in a huge performance boost.

From 42FPS up to 61FPS.

Those are pretty good PhysX cards being used. The example I'm trying to show is using a ultra high end card like a GTX 580 or GTX 590 and then tying it down with something extremely slow like a GeForce 8600GT. When that happens, you are better off just using a single card instead of using the 8600GT for PhysX

The 8600GT would be roughly equivalent to the 9500GT on that graph, because they both have 32 CUDA cores. And even then you can see it doesn't hold the card back a whole lot.

[Exxon]

Damn, I just realised I should've had a mobo which would allow me to use my old GT 220 as Physx, seen the performance boost

[OverTheBelow]

I wouldn't want to put two hot graphics cards in that PC case of yours anyway, Exxon.

[Exxon]

I wouldn't want to put two hot graphics cards in that PC case of yours anyway, Exxon.

I gues you've seen the space between my GPU and the case?

No way in hell the GT 220 was going to fit in there (and without letting both cards reach +100C)