>> 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
>
>

Reply via email to