>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>Actually they were, up to the point you finally told us what screen >resolution you use. That changes things quite a bit, or I should say >changed one thing dramatically. >I recommended a fast dual core CPU because more cores will be wasted. >The i3-4340 3.6GHz Haswell would have been as fast as the quad core you >bought, and saved ~$40-50. 4GB RAM, more than 4GB is wasted, but as I >said previously it's cheap so buy more if you want, won't hurt. An SSD, >and APU graphics. The only change in that recommendation, now that I >know your screen resolution, is shifting to a very fast high bandwidth >discrete card. 2560x1440 is a pretty insanely high gaming res if you >want high frame rates and smooth rendering at high detail. Most "hard >core" gamers wouldn't touch 2560x1440 without SLI/Xfire. >If going w/a single reasonably priced card you're going to want/need a >model with a 384 bit bus. Extremely high resolutions require extremely >high memory bandwidth. The 384bit nVidia models are all above $600. >The AMD 7950s can be had in the low $200s, and the 7970s in the low >$300s. Both are 384bit. You are right about the quad core not making any real difference. I have run the activity monitor and observed how one core is at 70% and another at 22% and two others unused. Average user applications are not yet written to take advantage of multiple core processors. I am glad you finally understand that my desire for a dedicated video card with a substantial amount of dedicated video ram was not just a case of "bigger, better, faster, more" but based on the reality of what is required to do what I do. I can't imagine what screen resolution you thought I had in mind. 1024x768? It hurts my old eyes to look at those. I have also looked at my memory usage. At this very moment, not running WoW, I have 5.22 gig being used. 4 gig would not be sufficient for me. I do thank you for the advice pertaining to a 384 bit bus and a gig more video ram than I was planning to get. That is advice that I will be following. On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com>wrote: > On 10/1/2013 12:29 AM, Rhiamom wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> > wrote: > ... > >> It's quite funny to see someone of your knowledge level tell me I'm > >> wrong by quoting the cardboard box as your evidence, while I'm > >> demonstrating how the transistors and everything else work to get to a > >> realistic set of requirements... > > > > This is the crux of the matter. Your requirements are not realistic for > how > > Actually they were, up to the point you finally told us what screen > resolution you use. That changes things quite a bit, or I should say > changed one thing dramatically. > > I recommended a fast dual core CPU because more cores will be wasted. > The i3-4340 3.6GHz Haswell would have been as fast as the quad core you > bought, and saved ~$40-50. 4GB RAM, more than 4GB is wasted, but as I > said previously it's cheap so buy more if you want, won't hurt. An SSD, > and APU graphics. The only change in that recommendation, now that I > know your screen resolution, is shifting to a very fast high bandwidth > discrete card. 2560x1440 is a pretty insanely high gaming res if you > want high frame rates and smooth rendering at high detail. Most "hard > core" gamers wouldn't touch 2560x1440 without SLI/Xfire. > > If going w/a single reasonably priced card you're going to want/need a > model with a 384 bit bus. Extremely high resolutions require extremely > high memory bandwidth. The 384bit nVidia models are all above $600. > The AMD 7950s can be had in the low $200s, and the 7970s in the low > $300s. Both are 384bit. > > > I want to use my computer. You may be able to happily exist on your > minimal > > memory, ruthlessly eliminating background processes and OS features. I do > > not choose to do that. Your expert knowledge is worthless to me, because > it > > requires me to alter the basic way I use my computer. In fact, it is > worse than > > useless, because some poor sap might follow your advice and then wonder > > why they have performance issues with their brand new computer. > > No it doesn't change the way you use your computer. Because the specs I > gave actually match how you currently use your computer. You simply > don't know it, because you're not using the tools at your disposal which > inform you of what system resources you're using. > > Run top, install Munin, etc, and look at the percentage of each CPU core > that is used, and how much memory is used by your applications. You'll > be very surprised. Then look at the GPU driver control panel while > running WOW and see how much of the video RAM is in use. At 2560x1440 > it may be pretty high. > > The 7950/7970 both sport 3GB of VRAM do you shouldn't fall short there. > > >> It doesn't matter as you already bought your system. But I find it > >> interesting that you will be running integrated graphics for the time > >> being, after you stated this is wholly inadequate. > >> > >> I also find it interesting that not once did you mention that you may > >> try your old 6970 in the new box, before plunking down unnecessary cash > >> on yet another high end video card. > > > > Yes, I will be running the integrated graphics for a few weeks while I > adapt to > > the new box. It is only temporary. > > > > The 6970 is in my iMac, and will remain there. Note that even with 2 gig > of > > dedicated video memory I am not able to play WoW on all high settings > with > > the 6970. > > Again, that's not because there's not enough GPU memory, it's because > the DRAM bus isn't fast enough, or the chip itself isn't fast enough, or > both, for that insanely high resolution. > > -- > Stan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/524af3e9.5010...@hardwarefreak.com > >
