Type: Posts; User: Sakkura
Search: Search took 0.04 seconds.
Yeah well, he's an idiot. The problem is that the card goes up to 95 degrees C, and then it throttles down to stay at 95C. It's not the temperature that is really problematic, it's the throttling....
A 4K screen in itself will break the bank, so you can't really complain about the graphics cards required to run it also break the bank.
With a pair of R9 290Xs in Crossfire, or a pair of GTX 780 Ti's in SLI, you'd have enough power for 4K. And if you can afford a 4K monitor, you can afford those GPUs.
03-12-2013, 01:03 AM
It does reduce the problem, but doesn't completely fix it. Plus it makes for jet engine levels of noise. So it's not really a fix, just rearranging the problem.
3rd party coolers can fix it.
02-12-2013, 08:44 PM
The temperature itself isn't the problem, it's the fact that the card has to throttle down, which means you lose performance. Nvidia cards can do the same thing, but it's less of a problem since...
02-12-2013, 07:29 PM
It's AMD, not ATI.
The R9 cards use the same architecture as the HD 7000 series. Just like the GTX 700 series use the same architecture as the GTX 600 series.
The R9 290 has great performance...
28-11-2013, 07:53 PM
Is musculus sphincter pupillae better? :P
28-11-2013, 06:32 PM
Eh? Your eyes adapt to the amount of incident light, besides, you could just turn down the brightness.
For the eye musculature, the most relaxed state is achieved with an intermediate amount of...
28-11-2013, 02:16 PM
Intensity can be regulated just fine with TFT or even old-school CRT displays (just try not to use the latter in head-mounted devices). Standard display technologies do not emit too much light for...
28-11-2013, 12:05 PM
There are plenty of OTHER reasons to try this type of setup, few (or none) of which involve superstitions about untouched photons.
28-11-2013, 10:22 AM
Oh, right, because photons suddenly work differently if you're using them for technology (shush, of course it has nothing to do with marketing BS). And, naturally, all the tech guys using other...
27-11-2013, 03:24 PM
The sun is not a problem for your eyes because its photons have not been reflected. It's a problem because there are too many of them. If you stare at the sun in a mirror, you're still going to hurt...
27-11-2013, 11:24 AM
That's retardiculous. Photons are photons, it makes no difference if they've bounced off some electrons on the way from the source to the retina.
Water cooling is typically a little more noisy than air cooling.
And triple-fan GPU coolers are typically better than dual-fan coolers (both in terms of cooling and noise).
24-11-2013, 03:03 AM
id have also started over on Doom 4, plus they both face a lot of issues in adapting classic games to modern gaming.
23-11-2013, 05:07 PM
It's the same conundrum that Valve is in regarding Half-Life 3, except even worse.
23-11-2013, 01:27 PM
It's better, but still has some rough edges. Like a GTX 780 is on the same tier as the Radeon R9 280X and HD 7970 GHz, which are both somewhat slower.
23-11-2013, 01:48 AM
That site is terribly inaccurate though. Titan > 780 > 780 Ti > 290X? No, that's not how it goes in reality (more like 780 Ti >= 290X > Titan > 780). GTX 690 slower than a 670? That's just ridiculous.
22-11-2013, 10:28 PM
Makes sense, with Oculus Rift development entering the home stretch.
22-11-2013, 09:59 PM
Or you'd assume that a Geforce 9800 GTX is about as good a Radeon 9800 XT (and if AMD had stuck to its past naming scheme, the Radeon HD 9870).
22-11-2013, 07:46 PM
Graphics cards cannot be summed up in a model number anyway, so you wouldn't ever be able to buy one if that was true.
22-11-2013, 05:00 PM
Those are not comparable anyway, so you were getting confused by the previous naming scheme too. 48XX and 58XX were the top single-GPU cards in their generations, but the 68XX and 78XX were not the...
22-11-2013, 04:57 PM
Well a 9000 series would have been similar to their own old Radeon 9000 etc., as well as to the old Geforce 9000 series. That's really no argument in favor of keeping their previous naming scheme.
0.996^2 = 0.992016
1 - 0.992016 = 0.7984%
So RAID0 basically doubles the risk. And the performance gain is mainly in sequential read, not the more important aspects of SSD performance (where the...
RAID0 is a bad idea. Much better to get a single 250 GB SSD than two 120 GB SSDs in RAID0.
Results 1 to 25 of 500