Also be very mindful of the case risers (the screw platforms the motherboard sits on). You should have no risers where there isn't a screw hole on the motherboard. If there is a hole on the motherboard, but not solder around that hole, don't put a riser under it.
Everything looks fine on my side but wanted to have a second set of eyes to double check if anything is missing from it.
Looks good. The only thing I would complain about is the 5400 rpm HDD. If you're dealing with lots of video files you need all the speed you can get so you want a 7200 rpm or an ssd.
Hello from my newly upgraded computer. Time to install and update things. First world problems, I know. However, I wonder if there is a way to tall my Google Chrome history and cookies and copy/paste it into the Chrome folder on my SSD.
SSDs are great. The install wasn't bad at all, even though I was basically told how to do the install. If I were to do it on my own, it would take me a while to understand what plug goes where when it comes to the power/reset buttons.
I couldn't put my Zalman CPU fan on because the mounting bracket didn't fit on the motherboard. The basic one is ok for now.
Jeremy's install didn't work out because he didn't get an SSD so we were using the old HDs, however the mobo didn't like the boot up from his HDs, so it looks like we'll have to do a fresh reinstall later on. Ah well. It's just nice to have a computer that isn't bottle necked whenever I run various programs.
Well I know it save the favorites bar and passwords which is great. I was just being lazy in regards to cookies of whatever. I realized it's ok to start anew with Chrome. iTunes, however is a PITA. I have a copy of my library, so hopefully it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Isn't chrome history linked to your google account?
You can, but it's optional, I'm pretty sure.
Yes but cookies are not, if you want to do copies of your cookies you need to manually copy and paste cookie information from the origin to destination using a Chrome app. Not sure as to why you want to do this, I don't personally keep cookies for very long.
You can export it using Firefox and IE but not Chrome.
Your history, tabs, extensions and passwords will be preserved if appropriate settings are selected in Chrome when you sign into your account on your new computer.
You have a lot of options then. You would probably be fine with a TN panel (the most common and cheapest type of panel) and really at that point it's just figuring out which one you like visually. There are other features that probably don't matter (3d?) but it's up to you.
I would still recommend an IPS personally, the Dell Ultrasharp U2412M is still one of the best IPS panels with response times that compete with TN panels while not looking washed out (also why pay crazy amounts on a video card if you never see how it's supposed to look).
Other competitors with IPS panels for gaming - Asus and Eizo.
My main machine is for gaming and I still use a 30" IPS panel on it, apparently its supposed to be poor for gaming but it doesn't stop me from winning.
A lot of people are fans of the Dell Ultrasharps. Or you can pick up two of something up for the price depending if you like that idea better. If I were on a budget straight out of college, I'd probably be going with the dual cheap displays.
I had a similar situation with monitors come up. I was looking for something good, but really need more than single monitor real-estate for design so I ended up going with Acer monitors for a while, bare bones and nothing particularly great to say there. I then upgraded to one, then two HP Pavilion 23xi monitors.
They were both bought at a very low price from Staples, of all places, and in fact at least a year apart: yet they match perfectly. I've had them matched for almost a year now and they work. But more importantly, being silver based with a tastefully flush-mount bezel and a matte screen; they look better than the all-black, often glossy mess of a lot of low-end consumer monitors.
The prices fluctuate between sale and discount and regular MSRP, but I got them on good deals both and for cheap dual monitor setup they fit the bill.
There are most certainly better monitors though, and for some design I'm starting to see a need for higher resolutions at larger screen areas, and if given the opportunity I'd buy a pair of 27" ultrasharps with WQHD
But by far there are more important things to invest in at this point than increased resomolutions and the increased GPU power to push dem pixels.
Just considering a new video card at the moment. Literally for gaming and moderate Photoshop work however it's on an X58 build. It will need to push a 2560x1600 monitor so I was leaning on 4gb minimum VRAM.
Can anyone give any insight on the Geforce GTX 770 (I think the overclock versions of this card are sold with 4gb) and the AMD R9 290
Apparently the 290 runs louder, I don't care about heat because my case is made specifically to dispel video card heat.
I don't think the 780 is worth looking at for the price but if others feel that it is worth I can shift my focus.
I don't think you really need that much VRAM. Honestly I think a lot of cards are made with too much VRAM because stupid people look at the amount of VRAM rather than how good the card actually is.
I don't think you really need that much VRAM. Honestly I think a lot of cards are made with too much VRAM because stupid people look at the amount of VRAM rather than how good the card actually is.
Using a 2560x1600 monitor is about double the number of pixels. The only reason you increase your VRAM is pushing more pixels or multiple monitors (which translates to multiple pixels).
If the minimum for cards aimed at 1080 monitors is 2gb is there a linear translation to higher resolutions?
I was under the impression that video RAM was primarily used for storing textures. Most of the time when you are playing a game and it is "loading..." is because it has to load lots of high resolution textures from the disk into the video RAM. More video RAM means you can load higher resolution textures, and more of them at once without having to go back to the disk.
If video RAM is used for something else, I'll be very interested to know. The actual framebuffers I'm pretty sure are stored elsewhere, and do not take up much space. At most you have 3 frames buffered. With 2x monitors at 2560x1600 and 32bit color, those three frames will take up 96 megabytes. Not exactly something that requires gigs of VRAM.
You can do higher res textures and more buffering with more RAM. The more the better really.
EDIT: To be more specific there are a shitload of "layers" that goes into frame so for each literal frame you're receiving more than one version of it. The video card blends these based on some instruction (matrix manip) to produce a single image and then displays that image. So the more RAM the more information it can store about that frame meaning better graphics. This is dependent on that space actually being used though.
X-plane's devs (okay, dev, it's basically just one guy who basically does all their graphics code and most of the rest of the sim) emphasize how having lots of VRAM is very important due to the shear number of high-res textures it's slinging at any given time. They even offer an option to use compressed textures in your VRAM (I'm so out of the loop with mainstream PC gaming that I'm not sure how common this type of option is).
I think VRAM is also used to store all the polygon info, so high polygon count games would require more VRAM. However, even all the polygons in a high polygon game probably don't equal the amount of VRAM used by their textures.
So yeah, if you want lots of high res textures, get more VRAM.
They even offer an option to use compressed textures in your VRAM (I'm so out of the loop with mainstream PC gaming that I'm not sure how common this type of option is).
I don't recall seeing this very often but I've been playing through the new Wolfenstein game on PC and it does offer this option. It might be something that id Tech exposes easier than other engines though maybe? Never got that deep in Unreal or Unity to know if its easily exposed. Or devs just don't want end users to futz with it.
I think VRAM is also used to store all the polygon info, so high polygon count games would require more VRAM. However, even all the polygons in a high polygon game probably don't equal the amount of VRAM used by their textures.
I believe you're right about this as well. I mean, the GPU is being used more and more often over CPU for tasks that cannot be boiled down to simple comparisons. More and more software ends up utilizing the GPU almost as much as the CPU. I also don't think it utilizes CPU RAM unless it absolutely has to so giving it a lot to work with definitely helps.
However nothing outside modeling software, video production software, and games will come close to maxing out resources.
Not really related but for some reason this made me think of it but the generic Dells we use at work have a weak GPU and an integrated GPU. I found a page that had a ton of Vines on it (some Buzzfeed page?) that would reliably crash the GPU drivers and the OS would default to the integrated GPU drivers. If you visited the page a second time it would blue screen Windows. That might have been the only time I've ever seen Win 7 blue screen.
Comments
Asus R751JB-MH71
Everything looks fine on my side but wanted to have a second set of eyes to double check if anything is missing from it.
SSDs are great. The install wasn't bad at all, even though I was basically told how to do the install. If I were to do it on my own, it would take me a while to understand what plug goes where when it comes to the power/reset buttons.
I couldn't put my Zalman CPU fan on because the mounting bracket didn't fit on the motherboard. The basic one is ok for now.
Jeremy's install didn't work out because he didn't get an SSD so we were using the old HDs, however the mobo didn't like the boot up from his HDs, so it looks like we'll have to do a fresh reinstall later on. Ah well. It's just nice to have a computer that isn't bottle necked whenever I run various programs.
You can export it using Firefox and IE but not Chrome.
Your history, tabs, extensions and passwords will be preserved if appropriate settings are selected in Chrome when you sign into your account on your new computer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313
Random one that has all the bells and whistles?
Note that this wouldn't compare to a nice high quality panel monitor. They serve different sorts of purposes.
Other competitors with IPS panels for gaming - Asus and Eizo.
My main machine is for gaming and I still use a 30" IPS panel on it, apparently its supposed to be poor for gaming but it doesn't stop me from winning.
They were both bought at a very low price from Staples, of all places, and in fact at least a year apart: yet they match perfectly. I've had them matched for almost a year now and they work. But more importantly, being silver based with a tastefully flush-mount bezel and a matte screen; they look better than the all-black, often glossy mess of a lot of low-end consumer monitors.
The prices fluctuate between sale and discount and regular MSRP, but I got them on good deals both and for cheap dual monitor setup they fit the bill.
There are most certainly better monitors though, and for some design I'm starting to see a need for higher resolutions at larger screen areas, and if given the opportunity I'd buy a pair of 27" ultrasharps with WQHD
But by far there are more important things to invest in at this point than increased resomolutions and the increased GPU power to push dem pixels.
It will need to push a 2560x1600 monitor so I was leaning on 4gb minimum VRAM.
Can anyone give any insight on the
Geforce GTX 770 (I think the overclock versions of this card are sold with 4gb)
and the
AMD R9 290
Apparently the 290 runs louder, I don't care about heat because my case is made specifically to dispel video card heat.
I don't think the 780 is worth looking at for the price but if others feel that it is worth I can shift my focus.
If the minimum for cards aimed at 1080 monitors is 2gb is there a linear translation to higher resolutions?
If video RAM is used for something else, I'll be very interested to know. The actual framebuffers I'm pretty sure are stored elsewhere, and do not take up much space. At most you have 3 frames buffered. With 2x monitors at 2560x1600 and 32bit color, those three frames will take up 96 megabytes. Not exactly something that requires gigs of VRAM.
EDIT: To be more specific there are a shitload of "layers" that goes into frame so for each literal frame you're receiving more than one version of it. The video card blends these based on some instruction (matrix manip) to produce a single image and then displays that image. So the more RAM the more information it can store about that frame meaning better graphics. This is dependent on that space actually being used though.
I think VRAM is also used to store all the polygon info, so high polygon count games would require more VRAM. However, even all the polygons in a high polygon game probably don't equal the amount of VRAM used by their textures.
So yeah, if you want lots of high res textures, get more VRAM.
However nothing outside modeling software, video production software, and games will come close to maxing out resources.