Building a desktop, would appreciate advice and help.

Mako321 · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:36 pm **Posts:** 3405

samjc3 wrote:

So far as I recall, only through the hit or miss unlocking of 6850's into 6870's did ATI beat nvidia in price/performance. And with the advent of the quite affordable factory overclocked 560ti's, that advantage has been gone for awhile. And quite frankly, I have several Nvidia based rigs (8600gt, 9500gt, ion, 335m, 460m, 560m, 560ti, quadro 6000), and I've never, ever had driver issues, even with beta drivers. The ati systems I have dealt with (e-350 apu, 4610, 5870m and some old x1600) have been fraught with issues. The e-350's were pretty painless, but I never could get the 4610 to take a driver update without fritzing out and crashing. And the 5870 in the g73, well, 11 restarts, 2 BSODs and more than a few non fatal crashes was all it took to update drivers successfully. Which actually decreased render performance in solidworks, all said and done. Never did get the 4610 working; just replaced with an old 8600gt, which dropped in and worked fine.

For overclocking, I can honestly say I've never tried overclocking an ati chip, since its enough of a pain in the ass to get the things run normally. My 560ti has been nothing but a pleasure to overclock. Sitting happy at 975mhz since november with no trouble. And a 4xsli gtx 680 rig just took the performance crown in the 3dmark 11 hall of fame.

For current pricing, yeah, nvidia is more expensive, because they cant keep up with production. The 7970 has a $50 higher msrp, so when nvidia gets production ramped up, the ati is gonna cost more.

All said and done, I firmly believe nvidia to be better. I suppose when 80% of your experience with a company has been a complete pain in your ass, you tend to dislike their product. Stack on that all of nvidia's goodies, like physx, cuda, and better 3d support, and it pretty much follows that Nvidia is better.

I've been getting a lot of issues lately relating to drivers, having to restart my PC a few times sometimes to not get 5fps out of CS:S playing on minimum for some reason from my 560Ti.
In terms of OCing, the 7970 is hugely underclocked from what it's rated to do from the factory, meaning you can OC way beyond stock where it's at the same performance as a 680. Not sure how that 680 beat a quad 7970 setup either, AMD is on top for multi card scaling right now also. As well, 3D drivers if anything should be easier to deal with on AMD cards, since third party drivers mean that you don't need to mess around with special Nvidia monitors and flax. Physx is also still useless.
I also don't want a card that's like having 3 lightbulbs in a shoe.

samjc3 · **Posted:** Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:59 pm

Mako321 wrote:

In terms of OCing, the 7970 is hugely underclocked from what it's rated to do from the factory, meaning you can OC way beyond stock where it's at the same performance as a 680. Not sure how that 680 beat a quad 7970 setup either, AMD is on top for multi card scaling right now also. As well, 3D drivers if anything should be easier to deal with on AMD cards, since third party drivers mean that you don't need to mess around with special Nvidia monitors and flax. Physx is also still useless.
I also don't want a card that's like having 3 lightbulbs in a shoe.

Most users never OC anyway, so really, the fact that it apparently scales well doesnt matter too much. But the high score is owned by nvidia 4x sli 680's. And actually, since I looked this afternoon, the second and third place slots, which were 4x crossfire 7970s, have been overtaken by two other overclockers on quad 680s.

For 3d, the only way to go is to have the shutter glasses and all that fancy flax, because its the only way the 3d isn't just a headache inducing pile of sadness and gimmick. So nvidia is the clear choice for anybody who is actually interested in 3d.

And, say what you will about phys-x, its cool as flax. It may not be particularly usefull in terms of overall gameplay, but, for making games looks gorgeous, and immersion factor in some games, you cant get better. Its amazing how far glass breaking realistically goes in, say, Mirrors Edge. I love it. Plus its being more and more supported in more and more games, which means all the more reason to have nvidia.

Not to mention those light up sneakers are the coolest flax ever.

Mako321 · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:36 pm **Posts:** 3405

samjc3 wrote:

For 3d, the only way to go is to have the shutter glasses and all that fancy flax, because its the only way the 3d isn't just a headache inducing pile of sadness and gimmick. So nvidia is the clear choice for anybody who is actually interested in 3d.

And, say what you will about phys-x, its cool as flax. It may not be particularly usefull in terms of overall gameplay, but, for making games looks gorgeous, and immersion factor in some games, you cant get better. Its amazing how far glass breaking realistically goes in, say, Mirrors Edge. I love it. Plus its being more and more supported in more and more games, which means all the more reason to have nvidia.

Not to mention those light up sneakers are the coolest flax ever.

Shutter glasses suck in my opinion, passive are the way to go. They're not heavy, they aren't expensive, they aren't made in only a few varieties and they don't need to be charged.
Glass breaking isn't very immersive either if your fps drops to under 4 when the glass is breaking thanks to only having one mid-high range video card. And still, supporting something which doesn't change anything still means it doesn't change anything. And in reality, only 2 games have/are coming out in 2012 that support it. That's a WHOLE gingivitus-inviting LOT.
Also, I don't want shoes that are on fire.

samjc3 · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:55 pm

Mako321 wrote:

Shutter glasses suck in my opinion, passive are the way to go. They're not heavy, they aren't expensive, they aren't made in only a few varieties and they don't need to be charged.
Glass breaking isn't very immersive either if your fps drops to under 4 when the glass is breaking thanks to only having one mid-high range video card. And still, supporting something which doesn't change anything still means it doesn't change anything. And in reality, only 2 games have/are coming out in 2012 that support it. That's a WHOLE gingivitus-inviting LOT.
Also, I don't want shoes that are on fire.

Passive gives me an awful headache. Shutter glasses don't. And seriously, physx is not very intensive at all. My old 9500gt 1gb ran the effects in mirrors edge just fine at high detail with only a coupla fps hit (~40fps down from ~44). My 560ti, I haven't noticed any hit in anything with physx stuff enabled, except metro 2033. And that was only a few fps, and because metro is already pushing the card pretty hard, since its the new crysis. And borderlands 2 supports it, which is enough for me.

I've lit my shoes on fire before. On purpose. It was hardcore.

I suppose that's the real difference here, between us. I would light my shoes up gladly. You, on the other hand, would not.

ttsgeb · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:02 pm

Don't listen to them. Intel integrated is the way to go. You'll get the best performance from it, hands down.

Mako321 · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:36 pm **Posts:** 3405

samjc3 wrote:

Passive gives me an awful headache. Shutter glasses don't. And seriously, physx is not very intensive at all. My old 9500gt 1gb ran the effects in mirrors edge just fine at high detail with only a coupla fps hit (~40fps down from ~44). My 560ti, I haven't noticed any hit in anything with physx stuff enabled, except metro 2033. And that was only a few fps, and because metro is already pushing the card pretty hard, since its the new crysis. And borderlands 2 supports it, which is enough for me.

I've lit my shoes on fire before. On purpose. It was hardcore.

I suppose that's the real difference here, between us. I would light my shoes up gladly. You, on the other hand, would not.

I'm pretty sure anyone in existence would disagree about passive glasses, and you don't need to worry about desync and stupid flax. Not sure what's going on with Physx though, I used it on my current 560Ti and my old one, and if any windows broke in Mirror's Edge, my fps would go down to 1-3.
I wouldn't light my shoes on fire because I'm not Jen-Hsun Huang.

samjc3 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:12 pm

Mako321 wrote:

I'm pretty sure anyone in existence would disagree about passive glasses, and you don't need to worry about desync and stupid flax. Not sure what's going on with Physx though, I used it on my current 560Ti and my old one, and if any windows broke in Mirror's Edge, my fps would go down to 1-3.
I wouldn't light my shoes on fire because I'm not Jen-Hsun Huang.

I can only speak from personal experience as far as 3d goes, and passive bugs my brain something awful. For your physx woes, thats just wrong. Even at ultimate, my old 9500gt would stay above that (~10fps).

And I wasnt aware lighting shoes on fire had anything to do with being a rich asian.

Mako321 · **Joined:** Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:36 pm **Posts:** 3405

At the last Nvidia keynote, they announced that the GTX 690 was THE POWER OF 3 LIGHTBULBS IN A SHOE out of nowhere, flax was so cash.

D.J · **Posted:** Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:31 am

Back.

I like Nvidia and I am going with them. I'm going to comprise a solid list of components and post it here. Getting some feedback on that would be great.

Thanks, guys.

D.J · **Posted:** Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:40 am

flax man, there's a computer section? Could a Mod/Admin move this for me?

I feel like an idiot now.

Building a desktop, would appreciate advice and help.

Who is online