Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

Did you try a fresh install, or was it one of those free upgrade packages for testers?
uziq
Member
+187|1922

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Uzi wrote:

i guess there's the AMD ryzen stuff ... meh, good luck with that. don't know enough about it.
The Ryzen CPUs are the best on the market right now and they have a few more lined up to be released. There has been major gains in the last few years from AMD.
i can’t trust a company that still brands their gear with product names befitting 2002 energy drinks. ‘ryzen’, what the fuck. i can smell the adolescent BO and see the mountain dew bottles stacked full of piss from here. hard pass.

windows 10 runs completely fine on my i5 760. great job AMD.

Last edited by uziq (2019-10-24 11:39:05)

uziq
Member
+187|1922

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

@uziq That's why I attached the caveat of "depending on your demands." After looking into it, if the Quadro still meets them, dandy. I didn't say it wasn't viable or that it was due for the rust heap at all. It was an afterthought. Did you miss the part where I linked to Windows 10 viable drivers? I ran a GeForce 4 in one of my old work computers until it stopped functioning. It was good enough.

I play on both pc & console. I won't deny that PC games are in a bad place, but console games aren't above being buggy messes. You can find hilarious glitch compilations on youtube.

Also I don't really get shaming people for wanting to run their favorite old game with detail mods, and better textures/shaders. If someone wants to throw money into that so they can get better frames, who cares.

-

If I was building a computer specifically for gaming, it would barely be at $1k. But I have a workload that involves some photo manipulation and video editing, so I don't mind throwing more into it than that.
i’m not hating on you playing skyrim with mods. you do you. i am after all playing an updated WoW and (for once) enjoying the shit out of it. my point was that experience really isn’t worth 2019 new build money imho.

i wouldn’t mind a new generation CPU but for purposes of audio processing in DAWs.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+214|2189

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Did you try a fresh install, or was it one of those free upgrade packages for testers?
Forced upgrade. I did a fresh install of Win 10 on a PC I planned to triple boot Win 7, 10, and Linux. The Win 10 would blue screen in the middle of games. The whole Win 10 boot got corrupted after like a week and won't load. The Win 7 runs like a champ though. Never a BSoD or anything.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

uziq wrote:

i’m not hating on you playing skyrim with mods. you do you. i am after all playing an updated WoW and (for once) enjoying the shit out of it. my point was that experience really isn’t worth 2019 new build money imho.

i wouldn’t mind a new generation CPU but for purposes of audio processing in DAWs.
I agree. For me, it really isn't. And it hasn't been for a long time. It's the reason I've been on this old platform for so long. If it weren't for component age tickling my subconscious, I'd be fine with keeping my 2600k platform as my primary until circumstances change. I could just see going so far as to update the memory only for the motherboard or CPU to fail.

imo PCs are still on the stepping stone to 4k gaming with not a lot of super attractive 4k titles for me, and the 2080 ti card required to run that well is probably just more than a 4k screen and console combined. Meanwhile there's an 8k display at the local best buy which looks amazing, so there's that to keep an eye on.

I can't really get back into Skyrim. There's that bethesda/westeRPG syndrome of getting distracted by side quests and never finishing the story. It does look amazingly updated with mods, though. Mostly I've been working my way through some of the Assassin's Creed and Far Cry titles while I wait for Doom Eternal.

If arenanet had something a 'Guild Wars Classic' rerelease, I'd probably dive back into that for awhile.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+214|2189
You should play a tale of two wastelands
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

I should give that a look, thanks for reminding me.
Somendes
Post limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+0|115
After playing Cosmic Star Heroine on Vita and the mobile version of Apknite, I want to play more. So I am looking for some short RPGs (action or traditional) - 3DS/DS or Vita/PSP, games sub 25/30 hours that are really worthwhile. I know these consoles have many long great games, but I am looking for some shorter options.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

I'll bite.

I think the question is too broad. Rather than a potential back and forth, it might be faster to check with some of the "top short rpg" lists for these platforms. Maybe dig into some older titles as well.

Keeping in mind that the guys behind CSH (which I haven't played) also built Breath of Death VII and Cthulhu Saves the World (which I have):

@ 50 games like: https://www.50gameslike.com/games-like/ … ar-heroine
uziq
Member
+187|1922
the new 16" MBP has won me over. finally a credible replacement to my 15" 2013-15 model.

the last generation -- touch bar, thunderbolt/usb-c only, introducing the space grey colour scheme, etc. -- all had variations on a horrific 'butterfly' keyboard, with no travel and a very hard feeling, not to mention loads of quality problems and a lack of repair options (very flat, low travel --> dust under the keyboard is a gg). a huge no-no for me, typing for work all day.

seems now they've perfected that formula with a reversion to an older-style scissor keyboard. yes, reintroducing an old keyboard design really is that much of a game changer.

so 8-core i9, 32gb ram, 1tb SSD storage, and even a half-decent standalone GPU all for the same price as the last generation. they also improved the airflow in the design by 30% over the previous models, which seemed to turn into napalm bricks and required a CPU throttle (horrendous design), and they added an extra hour to its battery life.

this is actually a rare win for apple. it's a straight upgrade at the same price point.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-13 16:47:20)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,634|4576|eXtreme to the maX
Think I'll eventually go with a new workstation sometime next year, optimised for CAD and relegate the Win 7 box to the shed. I need a more up to date machine than XP for my robot.
Either from a  local builder or Dell.
https://www.dell.com/en-au/work/shop/wo … 3630wt03au
Dell seems to get ridiculed but they've given me solid performance whereas HP, Compaq, Toshiba etc have been nothing but trouble.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+187|1922
my girlfriend just got a huge dell laptop to take her through her architecture masters. does seem super reliable. i've just drifted away from windows as an operating system over the years and find it really clunky to use now.

i've gone from feeling an itch to upgrade and get new tech/gadgets every 1-2 years to every 5-10 years. i haven't bought a new workstation since 2013. crazy.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,634|4576|eXtreme to the maX
I like Windows 10 to use, delving into it to make any changes is not so good.

My machine is about the same age, no reason to upgrade except Win 7 going EOL and manipulating large mesh models is a bit beyond it.

Also want a 3d scanner

Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

Pretty much decided as well. If prices are there on black friday, then most likely:

* Intel platform, somewhere around +/--- 9x00k depending on sales.
* 2x16 GB
* rtx 2060 or 2070 super, depending on sales
* replacement SSD for OS, 250 GB+. mostly because current one is very old
* replacement drives for storage, reuse raid1 rack
* reuse HAF chassis, replace two worn out fans.

Upgrade roadmap:

* video card upgrade 2 or 3 generations later
* add'l 2x16 GB or replace with 2x32 GB

Replacement:

* dedicated workstation, maybe late 2020s. I don't really see myself playing newer PC games on bleeding edge settings at that point. and some of the games in beta 5 years ago will probably still be in beta then.

Looked at upgrades specific to my current platform, and it's just not worth it. Should get a good performance boost for the games I still actually play on PC, as well as work apps, ironing out the creeping chug.

Considered AMD over Intel. Slightly problematic in some of the applications I use. Maybe patched later, but I don't know. I'd rather pay a little more for similar performance if it means a chance of not running into as many issues. Likely to generate rolling eyes on enthusiast forums if mentioned there. I'll probably check a final time before finalizing.
uziq
Member
+187|1922
is 32gb worth it now? even for future proofing? considering it on my new MBP but don’t think i’ve ever pushed 16gb tbh. how many dozens of 4k porn tabs does an errant young squire need open at once?

i’m awaiting the proper tear downs of the latest 6core/9core intel processors. i’ve never had more than a quad and can barely imagine what sort of boosts they might give.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

For most users, no. 16 GB will suffice, and that seems to be a common refrain. I do a lot of multitasking and currently both CPU and RAM are often running at very high usage.

Partly the fault of some inefficient programming on the software end. Photoshop regularly caps out while I'm going over photographs if I don't micromanage what I have open. Acrobat eats a bunch on very long documents. Not to mention lots of open browser tabs can easily consume over half of my available RAM with progressive memory leakage. If I want to open a shooter without shutting the rest of the stuff down, that can be another 3-4 GB occupied.

It also fits my progression. Former PC early 00's, 2 GB, later upgraded to 4 GB. Current PC 8 GB, upgraded 16 GB. New PC 32 GB, about 10 years after current initial build. I don't actually imagine that being overrun anytime soon, but I thought I was fine before.

Pretty much any of the newer Intel CPUs would be a giant step up from the 2600K, and eliminate the bottleneck against an RTX.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

2x16 GB DDR4-2400 CL-13 about double comparable frequency/latency for 2x8 GB. (~$160 vs ~$80).
4x16 GB DDR4-3200 CL-16 Gskill at $230 at the moment. Actually very tempting.

By way of comparison,
2x32 GB DDR4-2400 CL-16 Corsair at $280
2x32 GB DDR4-3000 CL-15 Corsair at $320
2x32 GB DDR4-3200 CL-16 Corsair at $330


I prefer keeping timings reasonably tight. Performance difference on highlighted probably barely noticeable in actual performance. Likely similar with the others.

Devil's advocate for early 64 GB overkill, point would be instant future-proofing against hoggish programs (looking at you, Adobe). Not to mention avoiding the possibility of requiring an upgrade at a future date and hoping that the new matched pair gets along with the old one. Plus there's always the chance that the price of the 2x16 GB pair I buy wouldn't drop much and end up, in the future, being the same to double that if not more.

I don't like having to decide what to save and close while I'm in the middle of a project.
uziq
Member
+187|1922
i guess it depends on the project. i frequently work with indesign files and PDF proofs which are 500 pages+, full of images, commonly 500mb-2Gb in size, etc, and my 16Gb RAM has never even sweated it. i found a far bigger performance boost in getting an SSD, especially in reading huge embedded tiffs, graphics, diagrams, etc.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,799|5102|949

I think RAM is cheap enough, and software dev has gone off the deep end enough, where 32gb is almost basically a given at this point.

The reality is, if you have 32GB of RAM, your computer/laptop will find a way to use it all.
uziq
Member
+187|1922
interesting. most of the articles i've read online pretty much state that 16gb is some sort of homeostatic end-point for casual pc use and browsing/emailing/etc. are never gonna break it. i'm more of your opinion that software bloat will gradually creep up to the point where we'll be watching some 8k video on YouTube v2 in 5 years time and wondering how the hell we ever survived with anything less than 32gb.

RAM wasn't that cheap the last time i looked at PC parts? i remember a period where it truly was negligible to get another $40 stick or whatever.

going from 16gb to 32gb on the new retina MacBook pro is +$300.

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-14 15:28:26)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need on a computer."
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,799|5102|949

ram cost is less than $10/gb. It's been pretty static - that $40 stick was probably for 4gb.

Apple is notorious for overcharging on their component upgrades.

FWIW I get by 'fine' on 8gb. I'm in the same boat as most here - i haven't upgraded my PC in like 7 years. There's just nothing out there that motivates me to do it, mostly because I haven't been interested in any video games for the past few years. I used to play counterstrike but I haven't even played that in almost 2 years. SAD!
uziq
Member
+187|1922
apple is above-average priced, sure. but i'm not sure i'd say 'notoriously overcharges' anymore -- i don't know about that.

i paid top bucks for my maxed out retina MBP in 2015 and it has been great value for money, to me. the design and user experience are more than worth the premium. they make beautiful devices that do not fail or break (and on the rare occasion that they do, apple will normally swap it out for free and just give you a new unit; see the huge schemes they've rolled out in the past to deal with the odd instance of a design snafu).

it feels a bit routine to shit on them and say 'lol gullible customers' etc etc. having 32gb of ram, 8 cores and a 4gb graphics chip in something with the form factor of a retina seems neat to me (even the 1tb SSD default is pretty nice; i can't imagine needing an 8tb SSD in a laptop, but it's a neat option nonetheless). plus it comes with an OLED touch bar, amazing screen, and so on and so forth. in comparison to some of their previous generation models, where the pricing scheme was somewhat ... arbitrary ... and the devices had some setbacks, i can see why people grew frustrated. but it seems like it's come together on this latest generation. witness all the tech you tubers who are normally apple skeptics express mild surprise at the base price point.

but yes. it's still undeniably pricey. buuuuut they're just so beauuuuutifulll

Last edited by uziq (2019-11-15 12:42:10)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,758|5241|USA

On SSDs, 2TB seems to be the sweet spot at the moment when it comes to pricing. Crucial and Samsung 2.5" for $200. That would have been so nice to have had available instead when I added my 500GB.

For sure going to add one to the list before I pull any kind of trigger.

Of course, some of the devices' pricing is laughably skewed. "Let's jack up the MSRP on a similar-performing piece of hardware and then announce a 60% discount." Get outta here.

If I'd funneled the kind of budget money it would take to put in an SSD approaching 8TB, I'd for sure use it on a 2080 ti instead and still have some to spare.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,799|5102|949

uziq wrote:

apple is above-average priced, sure. but i'm not sure i'd say 'notoriously overcharges' anymore -- i don't know about that.

i paid top bucks for my maxed out retina MBP in 2015 and it has been great value for money, to me. the design and user experience are more than worth the premium. they make beautiful devices that do not fail or break (and on the rare occasion that they do, apple will normally swap it out for free and just give you a new unit; see the huge schemes they've rolled out in the past to deal with the odd instance of a design snafu).

it feels a bit routine to shit on them and say 'lol gullible customers' etc etc. having 32gb of ram, 8 cores and a 4gb graphics chip in something with the form factor of a retina seems neat to me (even the 1tb SSD default is pretty nice; i can't imagine needing an 8tb SSD in a laptop, but it's a neat option nonetheless). plus it comes with an OLED touch bar, amazing screen, and so on and so forth. in comparison to some of their previous generation models, where the pricing scheme was somewhat ... arbitrary ... and the devices had some setbacks, i can see why people grew frustrated. but it seems like it's come together on this latest generation. witness all the tech you tubers who are normally apple skeptics express mild surprise at the base price point.

but yes. it's still undeniably pricey. buuuuut they're just so beauuuuutifulll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAv4qOU_04
they do notoriously overcharge for component upgrades though. I'm not shitting on apple customers at all in saying that.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard