BF2S Forums Tech: Open thread

but its a mamba i guess ill get a replacement . .

but my g5 is still great. i think its 3 years old

its weird because this all happened suddenly my computer was on when this happened

Last edited by RTHKI (2010-09-26 19:49:15)

Harmor wrote:

Google, now Facebook to make their own Android phone?  Really...Mark?

money is money

Just a quick question:
If I want to syncronise data to say a NAS device over the network automatically from my directory, what piece of software can I use?
tia

http://www.guru3d.com/article/kfa2-gefo … y-review/4

I am quite interested, GTX 480 with very good cooler. Not only is it extremely quiet, but runs cool too. Huge overclock to 900MHz core and barely 65c under load @45% fanspeed, 30% is as quiet as GTX 460 reference and temps are only bit higher.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2010-09-26 23:16:15)

Huge card... definitely need to get a full ATX case for that, my GTX 460 is just squeezed in as it is.

On a more personal note: I fucking LOVE Crysis!

Last edited by CapnNismo (2010-09-27 02:54:23)

No idea. I am running at a relatively modest resolution (like 1280x1024 or something like that; I know, I should know it off the top of my head) along with 4x AA and I get 30-50 FPS depending on the environment - every now and again the in-game FPS counter thanks to ASUS's GamerOSD utility drops to around 25 but this is rare. The CPU fan gets a touch loud when the bullets start flying but for the most part the GPU stays quite quiet. Not sure about the stressing all six cores, I've not done any tests. Care to maybe point me in the direction of some testing methods? I'd be happy to share my results.

One thing that DOES bother me about my GTX460 and this should come as little surprise: it's an ASUS card and as such can use the GamerOSD program that you can turn on in-game. There's also a simple overclock utility marked simply "GPU Speed" which is by default at 675 and can be cranked up all the way to 1024. As I was cranking the dial up on the speed it didn't seem to affect performance much in Crysis but upon reaching 1024 the entire game crashed. I guess I found the limit.

I didn't get maxed across all my six cores in multiplayer, only on about 3 cores did it really start to climb above 75% and the rest were below.

What are you talking about? Because it isn't maxed out I should have bought an i5??? That statement makes no sense. I have two extra cores to distribute the workload across - that's why not all six cores are maxed out. (my resolution is set at 1600x1024, I used the in-game optimized settings to set it all up; just wish I could get 64-bit Crysis working...)

I know full well that the bottleneck is likely the GPU. I knew that when I bought the card that it wasn't going to be the best thing on the market - the whole idea was to build a computer that had decent upgrade possibilities. The only thing I might ever have to change is the case and add another GTX 460 and then I'm sitting pretty. The 4GB RAM might eventually become an issue, too, but all I do there is add more.

Three cores were at 50% with the other two being at or above 75%. The i5 750 (my other choice in CPU in building this thing) also only has 4 threads whereas my CPU has 6. Given that games are more and more (from what I understand given my little reading) becoming more efficient when it comes to multithreading then my CPU was the better choice. I know that each individual core is not as strong as the 750, but given future-proofing (if such a thing truly exists), my CPU should be the better choice for the long-term.

CapnNismo wrote:

I know full well that the bottleneck is likely the GPU. I knew that when I bought the card that it wasn't going to be the best thing on the market - the whole idea was to build a computer that had decent upgrade possibilities. The only thing I might ever have to change is the case and add another GTX 460 and then I'm sitting pretty. The 4GB RAM might eventually become an issue, too, but all I do there is add more.

Three cores were at 50% with the other two being at or above 75%. The i5 750 (my other choice in CPU in building this thing) also only has 4 threads whereas my CPU has 6. Given that games are more and more (from what I understand given my little reading) becoming more efficient when it comes to multithreading then my CPU was the better choice. I know that each individual core is not as strong as the 750, but given future-proofing (if such a thing truly exists), my CPU should be the better choice for the long-term.

wait?

4GB ram on DDR3?

Why not 3sticks for tri-channel

FloppY_ wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

I know full well that the bottleneck is likely the GPU. I knew that when I bought the card that it wasn't going to be the best thing on the market - the whole idea was to build a computer that had decent upgrade possibilities. The only thing I might ever have to change is the case and add another GTX 460 and then I'm sitting pretty. The 4GB RAM might eventually become an issue, too, but all I do there is add more.

Three cores were at 50% with the other two being at or above 75%. The i5 750 (my other choice in CPU in building this thing) also only has 4 threads whereas my CPU has 6. Given that games are more and more (from what I understand given my little reading) becoming more efficient when it comes to multithreading then my CPU was the better choice. I know that each individual core is not as strong as the 750, but given future-proofing (if such a thing truly exists), my CPU should be the better choice for the long-term.

wait?

4GB ram on DDR3?

Why not 3sticks for tri-channel

Not sure if his CPU does triple-channel

CapnNismo wrote:

ebug9 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

wait?

4GB ram on DDR3?

Why not 3sticks for tri-channel

AMD is still Dual-Channel.

ebug9 is correct, I can only do dual channel... even if I could have done triple channel there wasn't money in the budget for it when I bought the parts.

Oh sorry I mixed something up.. thought we were talking i7