Ok, EA. I get it. Big company, just released a new game, and your online distribution platform takes more work to push than heroin in Salt Lake City. But come on. The outsourcing couldn't be more obvious if the phone got answered "Thanks for calling the International House of Curry...". The first person you talk to knows roughly enough about computers to know they require electricity. The script following is as blatant as a first grade school play.
Maybe if you had the common sense to not release Origin until it actually works as a Steam ripoff, things wouldn't be so rough right now. Yesterday, one of your "techs" was so moronic I asked if I could talk to somebody who understood third grade English and knew at least as much about computers as me. He didn't know enough English to be offended. I'd rather not be right about that, guys.
So, since I'm sure you're actively ignoring everything coming through normal channels as much as you're passively ignoring this blog, I'll tell you about how broken your stupid shit is here, where there's probably a higher chance of you hearing about it than from your bottom tier, $0.05/hr people.
For starters: There is absolutely zero excuse for requiring me to have Origin AND a browser open at the same damn time to play a game. In fact, this level of incompetence makes the shit in Dilbert sound sane. It was clearly invented by some jackass in upper management who thinks Minesweeper is a hardcore, competitive game.
Next up, we have the fact that Origin doesn't set it's default download path into the drive it's on. In this day and age, that's beyond mandatory, and into "someone should get slapped across the face with their pink slip for getting this wrong" territory. And if you're really going to screw that up, there shouldn't be a bug in the options menu that can make it repeatedly NOT change the filepath to the one the user designates, but indicate it is changed when you hit the install button.
Maybe these issues don't seem huge, but when you can't talk to somebody with a multiple digit IQ score about them, it starts to be a serious problem. In fact, you corporate morons should stop rolling in the money from releasing "Madden Clone Whatever Year" with zero technical changes, and hire a consultant who's actually played a video game in their life to tell you how you're being idiots.
So, on to today's tech support joys. I'm having a stupid software conflict where for some reason various third party voice chat apps don't want to work with Battlefield 3. This game kind of revolves around teamwork in the multiplayer modes, if you didn't know. This is an intolerable problem. Luckily, the guy I talk to comprehends the concept of "Escalate me to someone who knows more about computers than the monkey you evolved from". So he asks me for a DxDiag dump, copy/pasted into the live chat, and disappears, supposedly to escalate me I guess...
Sorry, guy, but your silly little input limit on the live chat means I'd be copy pasting and digging through for the spot I left off for about an hour. How about you take your Ctrl-c/Ctrl-v and cram it, and give me a way to upload that massive wall of text. And while you're at it, can I maybe be escalated in a rational amount of time? I've been waiting over an hour now. Last I heard was... "Amresh: Just copy and paste it ." That was an hour and a half ago at this point. Maybe at least a confirmation I'm actually waiting on a human that didn't fail the turing test? I know there's someone above you who isn't busy, because everyone else who contacted your support already mercykilled themselves after the 73rd bash of their face against the brick wall you call "Service". Cheers. Die in a fire.
Showing posts with label Tech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tech. Show all posts
Monday, November 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Origin vs Steam, or, What?
Ok, EA, some tips. If you're going to pull all your games down from the best online content provider for gamers, you might want to have a viable replacement. For some weird reason, I don't consider it very good when I get ~70% of the DL speeds I do for Steam. Yeah, it's probably good that more people are looking into digital retail channels for games. Even though something like 0% of us believe that that convenience is actually any more than a weak excuse for pirates, it's still convenient.
But please, do it properly? Another thing. You should probably have a system that isn't clunky, awkward, and stupid to replace the handy Steam client. Hate to tell you this, but centralizing us on a damned web browser, on a site that loads slower than Steam pages, and even forcing us to LAUNCH from the web browser, is kind of annoying. Especially when we have to relaunch the game to switch servers.
I mean, is it really so hard for gaming's monopolistic, monolithic evil empire to hire maybe ONE whole person who actually plays games in some sort of decision making capacity? I mean, this is in the category of idiocy. The only reason people use origin for online purchase at all is because you force us to. Here's a news flash. We like Steam as a whole service, not just as a store. You didn't improve on it, and you suck.
By the way, if you try to take away my access to my games because you don't like this opinion, like you did to the one guy after DA2 came out, I promise to sue you so bad your stockholders mama feels it.
But please, do it properly? Another thing. You should probably have a system that isn't clunky, awkward, and stupid to replace the handy Steam client. Hate to tell you this, but centralizing us on a damned web browser, on a site that loads slower than Steam pages, and even forcing us to LAUNCH from the web browser, is kind of annoying. Especially when we have to relaunch the game to switch servers.
I mean, is it really so hard for gaming's monopolistic, monolithic evil empire to hire maybe ONE whole person who actually plays games in some sort of decision making capacity? I mean, this is in the category of idiocy. The only reason people use origin for online purchase at all is because you force us to. Here's a news flash. We like Steam as a whole service, not just as a store. You didn't improve on it, and you suck.
By the way, if you try to take away my access to my games because you don't like this opinion, like you did to the one guy after DA2 came out, I promise to sue you so bad your stockholders mama feels it.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Rainmeter, Customize your Desktop.
If you spend much time at your computer, you probably occasionally wish there was a way to stick certain things on your desktop so you could keep an eye on them while you do something else. If you're like me, you've noticed that Microsoft desktop gadgets are invariably ugly, and are massive RAM whores, like everything else they've ever made. Gadgets are also violently limited by the fact that they suck worse than a 10 cent hooker.
So how can you fix this? Well, the good people over at www.rainmeter.net have a solution for you. It's a free desktop scripting program. It runs fairly lightly in the background, can come with tons of default themes, and can be modified heavily. Track anything from your system resource usage, to your Google Calendar, your webmail inbox. Have a clock, a regular calendar, notes, and an RSS reader and media player controller. All on your desktop. You can set it up so you can click through to your icons, you can make it hide on mouseover, you can arrange it all to your liking, and you can make your own skins if you can't find fifteen or twenty to do what you want.
It's not really all that complicated to use, whether you just want basic download plug and play stuff, or if you want to tinker. Plug and play is done with an installer, and it even has a self extractor that can work on skins and themes that are set up properly.
If you want to tinker, you open up your skins folder, make a new text document, save it as a .ini file, and edit away. There's tons of instructions available, and with all the skins already out there, there's tons of reference material available. Yesterday I modded a skin rather heavily to fit in with my new desktop background of a sexy EVGA motherboard. Today, I'm making a better CPU monitor for it.
With all my stuff running, with all the monitors that have to update quickly, my Rainmeter is only using 18MB of RAM. In this day and age, that's nothing. Literally. So get it, try it, and play with it. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it, but there's no excuse for not seeing what it can do for you.
Here is a link to the skin I customized yesterday if you want to look. Try it, have fun with it. (Note, requires rainmeter to work. Otherwise it's just a bunch of plaintext files.)
Here is a link to the self extracting Rainstaller file for the skin pack.
This pretty picture displays it without needing rainmeter.
So how can you fix this? Well, the good people over at www.rainmeter.net have a solution for you. It's a free desktop scripting program. It runs fairly lightly in the background, can come with tons of default themes, and can be modified heavily. Track anything from your system resource usage, to your Google Calendar, your webmail inbox. Have a clock, a regular calendar, notes, and an RSS reader and media player controller. All on your desktop. You can set it up so you can click through to your icons, you can make it hide on mouseover, you can arrange it all to your liking, and you can make your own skins if you can't find fifteen or twenty to do what you want.
It's not really all that complicated to use, whether you just want basic download plug and play stuff, or if you want to tinker. Plug and play is done with an installer, and it even has a self extractor that can work on skins and themes that are set up properly.
If you want to tinker, you open up your skins folder, make a new text document, save it as a .ini file, and edit away. There's tons of instructions available, and with all the skins already out there, there's tons of reference material available. Yesterday I modded a skin rather heavily to fit in with my new desktop background of a sexy EVGA motherboard. Today, I'm making a better CPU monitor for it.
With all my stuff running, with all the monitors that have to update quickly, my Rainmeter is only using 18MB of RAM. In this day and age, that's nothing. Literally. So get it, try it, and play with it. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it, but there's no excuse for not seeing what it can do for you.
Here is a link to the skin I customized yesterday if you want to look. Try it, have fun with it. (Note, requires rainmeter to work. Otherwise it's just a bunch of plaintext files.)
Here is a link to the self extracting Rainstaller file for the skin pack.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Anatomy of an E-Sport
E-Sports are starting to be something that people occasionally hear about. Big international gaming tournaments, with prizes of thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars. That's a lot of damn money for a video game. Especially if you're a top player, salaried, on a team, we ain't in momma's basement no more.
Just a couple of days ago, I was sitting in a sports bar, watching the finals of Major League Gaming's Orlando event. Dozens of other people there, cheering for some awesome Starcraft 2 players, having a couple of beers, yelling, big screen TV's, the works. This is getting big, and with the increasing emphasis of technology in the modern world, it's not going anywhere.
So what makes for a game that can be an E-Sport? We have various games to look at, Halo, Call of Duty, League of Legends, DOTA, HoN, Starcraft 2. Not all of these games seem to have much in common. From the shooters, to the real time strategy, to the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.
The first factor they need, obviously, is a means of direct competition. A means of pitting people against each other, rather than just the game. This lets you see whose tactics, strategy, mechanics, and game knowledge is actually superior in a tangible sort of way. Team play isn't required, but it does add some depth to some games.
Next, they need little to no random factors. People don't watch professional Yahtzee, for some weird reason. Might have something to do with the fact that random chance can have too much of an adverse effect on skill. I still don't have a clue why people enjoy watching poker tournaments. Sure, there's some cool dynamics, but when the best player can be crushed by the vagaries of fate, it's kind of detrimental to enjoyment, at least for me.
Another important notion is a high skill cap. If it's easy to keep pace and do everything, it takes challenge out. This is why certain games, particularly fighters and shooters, will occasionally put limits on what is allowed in competitive play, whether it's disallowing specific weapons, characters, or anything else. This is there so that something that requires demonstrably less skill to be effective doesn't skew the competition by forcing everyone to use to stupid overpowered stuff to be competitive at all.
Also important is a certain amount of tension. There needs to be some sort of edge, a palpable means of pressure building on the players. American football has third and long, or fourth and inches, field goals, and other moments where one exceptional play can make or break a team. If the game is capable of hanging by a thread, or balancing on a narrow ledge, where it can go either way at any second, it draws in attention.
Finally, for an E-Sport to be successful, there needs to be some sort of exterior community. People gathering, whether it's online or in sports bars, at tournaments or in houses, there needs to be sufficient gatherings of people to draw the sponsors. Without sponsors, you don't have player salaries, you don't have big tournament payoffs.
There may be other factors you can think of, but this is, I think, the true essence of an E-Sport. Just about anything that combines these factors is likely to succeed.
Just a couple of days ago, I was sitting in a sports bar, watching the finals of Major League Gaming's Orlando event. Dozens of other people there, cheering for some awesome Starcraft 2 players, having a couple of beers, yelling, big screen TV's, the works. This is getting big, and with the increasing emphasis of technology in the modern world, it's not going anywhere.
So what makes for a game that can be an E-Sport? We have various games to look at, Halo, Call of Duty, League of Legends, DOTA, HoN, Starcraft 2. Not all of these games seem to have much in common. From the shooters, to the real time strategy, to the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.
The first factor they need, obviously, is a means of direct competition. A means of pitting people against each other, rather than just the game. This lets you see whose tactics, strategy, mechanics, and game knowledge is actually superior in a tangible sort of way. Team play isn't required, but it does add some depth to some games.
Next, they need little to no random factors. People don't watch professional Yahtzee, for some weird reason. Might have something to do with the fact that random chance can have too much of an adverse effect on skill. I still don't have a clue why people enjoy watching poker tournaments. Sure, there's some cool dynamics, but when the best player can be crushed by the vagaries of fate, it's kind of detrimental to enjoyment, at least for me.
Another important notion is a high skill cap. If it's easy to keep pace and do everything, it takes challenge out. This is why certain games, particularly fighters and shooters, will occasionally put limits on what is allowed in competitive play, whether it's disallowing specific weapons, characters, or anything else. This is there so that something that requires demonstrably less skill to be effective doesn't skew the competition by forcing everyone to use to stupid overpowered stuff to be competitive at all.
Also important is a certain amount of tension. There needs to be some sort of edge, a palpable means of pressure building on the players. American football has third and long, or fourth and inches, field goals, and other moments where one exceptional play can make or break a team. If the game is capable of hanging by a thread, or balancing on a narrow ledge, where it can go either way at any second, it draws in attention.
Finally, for an E-Sport to be successful, there needs to be some sort of exterior community. People gathering, whether it's online or in sports bars, at tournaments or in houses, there needs to be sufficient gatherings of people to draw the sponsors. Without sponsors, you don't have player salaries, you don't have big tournament payoffs.
There may be other factors you can think of, but this is, I think, the true essence of an E-Sport. Just about anything that combines these factors is likely to succeed.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Defending AMD FX: A Losing Battle.
So, since yesterday's release of AMD FX CPUs, including the FX-8150 Octo-core, there's been many discussions online, referencing benchmarks, value, quality, and performance. As can be expected, there are actually still some fanboys dumb enough to think they have a chance of defending these piles of shit. So, in interest of... fairness, I've decided to discuss some of the... reasoning.
Excuse 1: It's not technically an 8 core CPU blah de blah.
As much as I normally love being technically accurate, there is such a thing as having shit for brains, and this excuse shows us the people who do. AMD advertised FX-8150 as an 8 core CPU, why shouldn't I judge threaded performance by the standard of 8 cores? Are you accusing the company you love of fraudulent advertising?
Excuse 2: It's really only intended to be a server architecture though!
Sorry, comes down to the same damn thing. AMD spent a fortune sponsoring IGN Proleague and shoving their AMD FX ads down our throats, trying to convince people that an 8 core CPU was good for gaming. You market it for gaming, you get benched in gaming performance. Not our fault it fell completely flat on it's face. Most people using Intel would prefer if AMD could compete, it would be awesome for CPU prices.
Excuse 3: Well, it's worse clock for clock, but it overclocks way higher!
Sadly, this means nothing to the vast majority of users. Why? Because, during testing, Anandtech found that the FX-8150 can only hit the same clocks on air as a 2500k or 2600k. It goes a bit higher on water, but quickly ends up needing extreme cooling. And sorry, the clock you could hit if you kept liquid nitrogen hanging around doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't.
Excuse 4: It isn't working well with Windows yet!
Yes, we know, you've burned that one into the ground. Unfortunately, the tasks it does the worst on are less threaded tasks, like gaming, where it has to try and compete with Phenom 2, the utterly obsolete predecessor.
Excuse 5: But it does compete with Sandy Bridge on multi-threaded tasks!
And it wants a cookie, I assume? For the vast majority of consumers this means... oh yeah, nothing. AMD FX is replacing Phenom 2 in bad product placement, as the poorly priced, late to the game CPU that you might get if you really need physical cores and don't want to pay for better hardware that costs from slightly less to slightly more.
Excuse 6: All those benchmarks are biased, and not representative of anything.
On the second one, welcome to benchmarks, jackass. Find a good analog for performance that gets benched frequently, or bench things yourself. As for bias, I really doubt all the reviewers were so biased that they had a damn conference at some executive resort in the Swiss Alps just to plan out how BD would do on each test.
So, AMD Fanboys, for your tenacity in the face of logic, for your stubborn pride and arrogance in the face of benchmarks, and for your inability to listen to reason, I salute you. Someone has to keep AMD in business so Intel can't really monopolize the market.
Excuse 1: It's not technically an 8 core CPU blah de blah.
As much as I normally love being technically accurate, there is such a thing as having shit for brains, and this excuse shows us the people who do. AMD advertised FX-8150 as an 8 core CPU, why shouldn't I judge threaded performance by the standard of 8 cores? Are you accusing the company you love of fraudulent advertising?
Excuse 2: It's really only intended to be a server architecture though!
Sorry, comes down to the same damn thing. AMD spent a fortune sponsoring IGN Proleague and shoving their AMD FX ads down our throats, trying to convince people that an 8 core CPU was good for gaming. You market it for gaming, you get benched in gaming performance. Not our fault it fell completely flat on it's face. Most people using Intel would prefer if AMD could compete, it would be awesome for CPU prices.
Excuse 3: Well, it's worse clock for clock, but it overclocks way higher!
Sadly, this means nothing to the vast majority of users. Why? Because, during testing, Anandtech found that the FX-8150 can only hit the same clocks on air as a 2500k or 2600k. It goes a bit higher on water, but quickly ends up needing extreme cooling. And sorry, the clock you could hit if you kept liquid nitrogen hanging around doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't.
Excuse 4: It isn't working well with Windows yet!
Yes, we know, you've burned that one into the ground. Unfortunately, the tasks it does the worst on are less threaded tasks, like gaming, where it has to try and compete with Phenom 2, the utterly obsolete predecessor.
Excuse 5: But it does compete with Sandy Bridge on multi-threaded tasks!
And it wants a cookie, I assume? For the vast majority of consumers this means... oh yeah, nothing. AMD FX is replacing Phenom 2 in bad product placement, as the poorly priced, late to the game CPU that you might get if you really need physical cores and don't want to pay for better hardware that costs from slightly less to slightly more.
Excuse 6: All those benchmarks are biased, and not representative of anything.
On the second one, welcome to benchmarks, jackass. Find a good analog for performance that gets benched frequently, or bench things yourself. As for bias, I really doubt all the reviewers were so biased that they had a damn conference at some executive resort in the Swiss Alps just to plan out how BD would do on each test.
So, AMD Fanboys, for your tenacity in the face of logic, for your stubborn pride and arrogance in the face of benchmarks, and for your inability to listen to reason, I salute you. Someone has to keep AMD in business so Intel can't really monopolize the market.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
What the Hell, AMD, or: Fanboy Tears, Tonic for the Soul.
Bulldozer got release. Many people who were willing to think critically and be objective have been just a bit skeptical, due to delays, leaked benchmarks, and the fact that AMD basically hasn't turned out a CPU that was actually worth a damn in years. All the speculation peaked in recent weeks, when they released a Youtube Video bragging about an overclock record (That they didn't bench) talking like clock speed was the be-all end-all of performance. Shortly after this, they released an ad that played way too many times during the IGN Pro League finals.
Skepticism and mockery of the way they've been dancing verbally around performance, going along with all the other factors, had people eager for vindication after debates and arguments.
Well, folks, with the actual release of AMD FX CPU's, they've finally lifted the NDA. Kind of late, yeah? Well, you can hardly blame them. Even the tests they do best in, they're coming out slightly ahead of the i7 2600k, with the FX 8150. Twice the physical cores, higher stock clock, and the best results are slightly ahead of i7. The worse results, in applications that aren't able to benefit from extra physical cores? Well, in those, they're mostly struggling to compete with the more recent Phenom 2 offerings. And those were obsolete the day they got released. Owch.
Here's the intended lineup:
I'm sure some enthusiasts will go nuts trying to OC these things, but in my opinion, just wait for Intel's new enthusiast socket. It won't suck.
Hopefully in the next couple of days I'll compile enough things fanboys have to say in defense of FX to have a reasonable post ripping into that.
Skepticism and mockery of the way they've been dancing verbally around performance, going along with all the other factors, had people eager for vindication after debates and arguments.
Well, folks, with the actual release of AMD FX CPU's, they've finally lifted the NDA. Kind of late, yeah? Well, you can hardly blame them. Even the tests they do best in, they're coming out slightly ahead of the i7 2600k, with the FX 8150. Twice the physical cores, higher stock clock, and the best results are slightly ahead of i7. The worse results, in applications that aren't able to benefit from extra physical cores? Well, in those, they're mostly struggling to compete with the more recent Phenom 2 offerings. And those were obsolete the day they got released. Owch.
Here's the intended lineup:
- FX-8150: Eight cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.9 GHz Turbo Core, 4.2 GHz Max Turbo), $245 suggested retail price (U.S.)
- FX-8120: Eight cores, 3.1 GHz CPU base (3.4 GHz Turbo Core, 4.0 GHz Max Turbo), $205 suggested retail price (U.S.)
- FX-6100: Six cores, 3.3 GHz CPU base (3.6 GHz Turbo Core, 3.9 GHz Max Turbo), $165 suggested retail price (U.S.)
- FX-4100: Four cores, 3.6 GHz CPU base (3.7 GHz Turbo Core, 3.8 GHz Max Turbo), $115 suggested retail price (U.S.)
I'm sure some enthusiasts will go nuts trying to OC these things, but in my opinion, just wait for Intel's new enthusiast socket. It won't suck.
Hopefully in the next couple of days I'll compile enough things fanboys have to say in defense of FX to have a reasonable post ripping into that.
Monday, October 10, 2011
AMD's Bulldozer, Bad Signs for CPU Prices.
So the ads during IGN Pro League SC2 finals yesterday got me thinking, along with various discussions I've been a part of, and different promotional stuff. AMD is, possibly, about to finally release the Bulldozer FX CPUs, starting with their high-end offerings, including some Octo-Core stuff. Now there's some stuff that sounds promising for overclockers and benchmark fans alike, but there's a lot more that scares the piss out of me.
For starters, we're almost six months late getting these CPUs now. Now obviously, in the chip world, this sort of thing isn't a shock on its own, but combined with some other factors, it makes me think the delays are due to being completely incapable of competing with current (or even recent) Intel offerings, sticking with the trend of the last few years.
Then, of course, there's the video AMD released, talking about setting a world record for overclocking. Now this should be awesome for enthusiasts, right? Well, except for a quote around the 45 second mark. "We're not running any benchmarks, we're just shooting for the highest CPU-Z." Sorry, but in my humble opinion, a clock you don't run shit at is kind of pointless. I can get all kinds of random ass numbers in CPU-Z and have my PC bluescreen 2 seconds into any stress test or benchmark under the sun.
That brings me to another point. Who in hell brags about clock speed if their CPU is actually better than the competitions? No, they'd run benchmarks, even if they were benchmarks specifically favoring their hardware due to number of physical cores or whatever else, and announce the "Fastest Desktop CPU Ever*" "*large quantity of small print defining fastest to the point that it's useless." But then, looking at stuff people
Using Google Translate (sorry) on (purported) leaked benchmarks, ". In this case the Intel Core i7 2600K to run at 3.4GHz base and could climb up to 3.8GHz was used when one thread, while the AMD FX-8150 worked at 3.6GHz can climb same conditions up to 4.2GHz." In other words, running stock v stock, even in tasks like Handbrake encodes, the 8150 and it's 8 physical cores were barely keeping up with a 2600k and HT technology. Owch. The rest of them aren't any better, with 3dMark physics score being < 80% of the 2600k.
All this is only confirming what I've been saying for a while. When you've been getting smashed in almost every performance category for as long as AMD has (not price/performance, which I'll admit they took at certain points), you don't withhold a product for 6 months if it's looking like it might compete. You certainly don't withhold a product that can set overclocking speed records, unless it can't compete.
Sorry, AMD, looks like Intel has nothing to worry about any time soon, and you've sealed Intel's ability to price wherever the hell they want for the foreseeable future, again. And I'm sure some people think I'm an Intel fanboy at this point. Sorry, I'm not. I'm a performance fanboy, and I'd LOVE for Intel to have some competition and have to consider price points for once. So please, feel free to prove me wrong.
For starters, we're almost six months late getting these CPUs now. Now obviously, in the chip world, this sort of thing isn't a shock on its own, but combined with some other factors, it makes me think the delays are due to being completely incapable of competing with current (or even recent) Intel offerings, sticking with the trend of the last few years.
Then, of course, there's the video AMD released, talking about setting a world record for overclocking. Now this should be awesome for enthusiasts, right? Well, except for a quote around the 45 second mark. "We're not running any benchmarks, we're just shooting for the highest CPU-Z." Sorry, but in my humble opinion, a clock you don't run shit at is kind of pointless. I can get all kinds of random ass numbers in CPU-Z and have my PC bluescreen 2 seconds into any stress test or benchmark under the sun.
That brings me to another point. Who in hell brags about clock speed if their CPU is actually better than the competitions? No, they'd run benchmarks, even if they were benchmarks specifically favoring their hardware due to number of physical cores or whatever else, and announce the "Fastest Desktop CPU Ever*" "*large quantity of small print defining fastest to the point that it's useless." But then, looking at stuff people
Using Google Translate (sorry) on (purported) leaked benchmarks, ". In this case the Intel Core i7 2600K to run at 3.4GHz base and could climb up to 3.8GHz was used when one thread, while the AMD FX-8150 worked at 3.6GHz can climb same conditions up to 4.2GHz." In other words, running stock v stock, even in tasks like Handbrake encodes, the 8150 and it's 8 physical cores were barely keeping up with a 2600k and HT technology. Owch. The rest of them aren't any better, with 3dMark physics score being < 80% of the 2600k.
All this is only confirming what I've been saying for a while. When you've been getting smashed in almost every performance category for as long as AMD has (not price/performance, which I'll admit they took at certain points), you don't withhold a product for 6 months if it's looking like it might compete. You certainly don't withhold a product that can set overclocking speed records, unless it can't compete.
Sorry, AMD, looks like Intel has nothing to worry about any time soon, and you've sealed Intel's ability to price wherever the hell they want for the foreseeable future, again. And I'm sure some people think I'm an Intel fanboy at this point. Sorry, I'm not. I'm a performance fanboy, and I'd LOVE for Intel to have some competition and have to consider price points for once. So please, feel free to prove me wrong.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
First-time PC Builder FAQ
This FAQ is only going to apply after you've picked parts. I'm assuming you're reading this after either asking on your forum of choice, or getting a list from the family member who works in IT and thinks workstation components are good for gaming rigs, and you wouldn't listen to me on what to use anyways. Besides which, picking components is all about deciding what you want out of your PC and buying the best parts for that, which is mostly about prices and benchmarks.
Source X (includes GPU manufacturer) says I need a higher wattage PSU than this, will it work?
Well, I can't answer for any configuration without making one up, defeating the purpose, but keep in mind, GPU manufacturers have to account for all kinds of PC configurations, and low quality PSUs. A high quality PSU in a typical configuration will generally work fine well below the "minimum wattage". Bear in mind, some PSU calculators exist to sell products, and others have to be used properly or they aren't helping at all. Example, the calculator at extreme.outervision.com, used correctly, gives the wattage needed for your PC at full load to hit the load percentage you designate. It doesn't list the wattage your PSU will use under load.
How hard is it really?
Assuming you can read, and have the ability to match rather specific shapes, it's pretty simple. Yes, you need to be moderately careful, but as long as you take your time, read instructions, and pay attention, it's pretty hard to screw up, and moreso in a way that causes permanent damage.
I was installing my Intel CPU, got resistance, and heard a crunch. Did I break it?
As long as you lined up the notches, yes, the weird grindy pressure noise thingy is normal. It's the tactile response version of hearing fingernails on a blackboard, but it's ok.
My PC won't boot, and I'm hearing a bunch of beeps, what's wrong?
Well, the specifics depend on your motherboard, but that's called beep code. If you either look in your motherboard manual, or google your motherboard's model number and the words "beep code", you can find a translation, and it will help you troubleshoot. It's usually a sign you installed something slightly wrong, or have a DOA (Dead on Arrival) CPU or RAM stick, but it can mean other things.
My PC seems to boot, but the screen stays black, what's wrong?
There's several common causes for this issue. One of the more frequent problems is plugging the video cable into the motherboard's video out with a discrete GPU installed. Another cause can be not having PCIE power cables plugged in, or incorrectly plugged in. Poorly installed video cards can also be an issue.
I got my computer to boot, and installed my OS, but now I can't connect to the internet and nothing is working, what did I do wrong?
Look in the box your motherboard came in, and find the CD. You just need to install chipset and ethernet drivers. No big deal at all.
I got an SSD, what should I put on it?
Your OS and anything you want to load at startup. PDF readers and office software are also good, as they tend to load slowly. Games with lots of single player loading time are ok, but multi-player games, there's no real point, as your loading will be restricted by the slowest loader anyways, and he invariably has a massively fragmented USB 2.0 5400 RPM external HDD.
Do you suggest a particular guide?
I personally direct people to the Hardware Canucks video guide. Other people like other ones, but a lot of the other ones I see suggested come from etailers, and I refuse to send people to a resource provided by someone with a conflict of interest.
Source X (includes GPU manufacturer) says I need a higher wattage PSU than this, will it work?
Well, I can't answer for any configuration without making one up, defeating the purpose, but keep in mind, GPU manufacturers have to account for all kinds of PC configurations, and low quality PSUs. A high quality PSU in a typical configuration will generally work fine well below the "minimum wattage". Bear in mind, some PSU calculators exist to sell products, and others have to be used properly or they aren't helping at all. Example, the calculator at extreme.outervision.com, used correctly, gives the wattage needed for your PC at full load to hit the load percentage you designate. It doesn't list the wattage your PSU will use under load.
How hard is it really?
Assuming you can read, and have the ability to match rather specific shapes, it's pretty simple. Yes, you need to be moderately careful, but as long as you take your time, read instructions, and pay attention, it's pretty hard to screw up, and moreso in a way that causes permanent damage.
I was installing my Intel CPU, got resistance, and heard a crunch. Did I break it?
As long as you lined up the notches, yes, the weird grindy pressure noise thingy is normal. It's the tactile response version of hearing fingernails on a blackboard, but it's ok.
My PC won't boot, and I'm hearing a bunch of beeps, what's wrong?
Well, the specifics depend on your motherboard, but that's called beep code. If you either look in your motherboard manual, or google your motherboard's model number and the words "beep code", you can find a translation, and it will help you troubleshoot. It's usually a sign you installed something slightly wrong, or have a DOA (Dead on Arrival) CPU or RAM stick, but it can mean other things.
My PC seems to boot, but the screen stays black, what's wrong?
There's several common causes for this issue. One of the more frequent problems is plugging the video cable into the motherboard's video out with a discrete GPU installed. Another cause can be not having PCIE power cables plugged in, or incorrectly plugged in. Poorly installed video cards can also be an issue.
I got my computer to boot, and installed my OS, but now I can't connect to the internet and nothing is working, what did I do wrong?
Look in the box your motherboard came in, and find the CD. You just need to install chipset and ethernet drivers. No big deal at all.
I got an SSD, what should I put on it?
Your OS and anything you want to load at startup. PDF readers and office software are also good, as they tend to load slowly. Games with lots of single player loading time are ok, but multi-player games, there's no real point, as your loading will be restricted by the slowest loader anyways, and he invariably has a massively fragmented USB 2.0 5400 RPM external HDD.
Do you suggest a particular guide?
I personally direct people to the Hardware Canucks video guide. Other people like other ones, but a lot of the other ones I see suggested come from etailers, and I refuse to send people to a resource provided by someone with a conflict of interest.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Bad Ripoff PC Seller.
Some guy decided to try and advertise on Team Liquid today, talking about his "friend's" hot gaming rigs.
http://jestercreativesolutions.com/gameprotech
I'd tell you to buy Cyberpower before this shit. AMD in this day and age? A 980 BE is in the i5 2400 price point, for 65% of the performance. He sells that with a 6850 for $1200. You can outperform that for $800...
Don't spam a site I hang out on the tech board of spamming ads for SHIT builds at STUPID prices. Dig?
http://jestercreativesolutions.com/gameprotech
I'd tell you to buy Cyberpower before this shit. AMD in this day and age? A 980 BE is in the i5 2400 price point, for 65% of the performance. He sells that with a 6850 for $1200. You can outperform that for $800...
Don't spam a site I hang out on the tech board of spamming ads for SHIT builds at STUPID prices. Dig?
Monday, September 26, 2011
Benchmarking for Fun (Or for Info.)
So if you frequent tech forums, you might hear something along the lines of "...only matters in synthetic benchmarks." or "You can't tell the difference without a benchmark." And, if you like the idea of having a slightly overpowered system, you may just want to know how to go about those benchmarks. Even if that's not the case, you may be wondering what will help your performance in a particular game the most, or wanting to find out just how effective your CPU or GPU is for a certain game.
If you read a lot of reviews, you've probably seen all the methodology, all the different names of software, and seen tons of numbers with pretty bars and graphs. Well, I hate to tell you this, but generally, the pretty bars and graphs don't just come with the software. Luckily, it's the numbers that matter anyway.
So, for starters, lets discuss benching for fun. The most commonly used benches for gaming performance are Futuremark's 3DMark series. The "standard" comparison points are the default settings, which you can get in the free trial version. Lets you get a better database of scores going.
If you're going to bench for fun, the most important thing to remember is that you need a consistent set of benching processes. The best way to do this is to have a secondary account on your PC with the absolute minimum of automatic services, to make sure memory use is consistent. Keep drivers updated, although you usually won't want to use Beta drivers unless you need a specific feature. (Always test beta drivers prior to sustained use, some graphics drivers have been known to cause thermal issues.)
So, now that you have your consistent stuff, you get a baseline. That's just at your normal settings, how does it work. After that, you can try tweaking things to see if they gain you performance. Whatever you decide to tweak, make sure you test with the same processes as before. It really can make a huge difference in scores, or enough to skew data to the point of unreliability.
Generally, the GPU is the easiest thing to tweak, since there's simple GUI based OC utilities that work reasonably well, like MSI Afterburner, or (to a point) EVGA Precision. Remember to push it up a little at a time, and test for stability before starting the benchmark. If you raise your GPU OC and suddenly lose performance, you either need to raise your GPU voltage (at your own risk), or lower the clock back down a bit. Generally, in graphics cards, RAM clock will be less performance for the voltage than core clock and shaders, so you generally won't want to bother with it.
The CPU, is, of course, one of those things people really think about overclocking, and a lot of people are scared of it. If you do your homework, have the right components, and do it carefully, it can be a perfectly safe way to gain performance. You only void your warranty if you do damage that can definitely be attributed to overclocking, so usually you're safe if you keep the OC within the CPU manufacturers specified voltage range.
This isn't an overclocking guide, but I will say that in recent i7's, it's usually best to raise clock to the desired level first, then see if you can squeeze hyperthreading back on safely. Hyperthreading will raise your score in 3DMark, but less than most clock speed gains. RAM speed and timings can also affect it, as can IMC clock, and basically all the usual culprits.
But now, I'm sure, you're wondering about the benching for information thing. After all, E-peenery is fun, but there's only so much you can say about it. If you want to learn something through benchmarking, you're going to need a few things.
1: Consistent Monitoring. Be it FRAPS for FPS/Frametimes, HWMonitor for temps, or something else, you must use software. Eyeballing it is worse than useless.
2: Consistent Playthrough. You need a replay, or a specific save file, or something that you always use for benchmarking. If you're getting an FPS recording of different things, it doesn't tell you much.
3: Objectivity. This is the key. If you aren't objective, you're useless. You need to be willing to get results you didn't want or expect.
Well, as for methodology, it depends a bit, based on what exactly you're wanting to test, but essentially you need to isolate a component. For CPU/RAM testing, graphics settings not requiring the CPU should be turned down, to include resolution. This ensures that the limiting factor will be your CPU. For RAM, you just get a baseline at a "Typical" setting, like CL9 1333 for DDR3, and work from there, using the same CPU clock.
If you want to isolate GPU, you crank the desired graphics settings, turn down anything you can involving the CPU, and hope you aren't trying to isolate the graphics card on an RTS. Won't happen unless you have a really screwy rig.
If you want to monitor temps, you need a consistent ambient temperature, and consistency in everything except what you're testing. Including what you use to heat up the PC, and how long you run it prior to measuring.
I know this hasn't really been long on details, but it's really more to get you thinking the right way.
If you read a lot of reviews, you've probably seen all the methodology, all the different names of software, and seen tons of numbers with pretty bars and graphs. Well, I hate to tell you this, but generally, the pretty bars and graphs don't just come with the software. Luckily, it's the numbers that matter anyway.
So, for starters, lets discuss benching for fun. The most commonly used benches for gaming performance are Futuremark's 3DMark series. The "standard" comparison points are the default settings, which you can get in the free trial version. Lets you get a better database of scores going.
If you're going to bench for fun, the most important thing to remember is that you need a consistent set of benching processes. The best way to do this is to have a secondary account on your PC with the absolute minimum of automatic services, to make sure memory use is consistent. Keep drivers updated, although you usually won't want to use Beta drivers unless you need a specific feature. (Always test beta drivers prior to sustained use, some graphics drivers have been known to cause thermal issues.)
So, now that you have your consistent stuff, you get a baseline. That's just at your normal settings, how does it work. After that, you can try tweaking things to see if they gain you performance. Whatever you decide to tweak, make sure you test with the same processes as before. It really can make a huge difference in scores, or enough to skew data to the point of unreliability.
Generally, the GPU is the easiest thing to tweak, since there's simple GUI based OC utilities that work reasonably well, like MSI Afterburner, or (to a point) EVGA Precision. Remember to push it up a little at a time, and test for stability before starting the benchmark. If you raise your GPU OC and suddenly lose performance, you either need to raise your GPU voltage (at your own risk), or lower the clock back down a bit. Generally, in graphics cards, RAM clock will be less performance for the voltage than core clock and shaders, so you generally won't want to bother with it.
The CPU, is, of course, one of those things people really think about overclocking, and a lot of people are scared of it. If you do your homework, have the right components, and do it carefully, it can be a perfectly safe way to gain performance. You only void your warranty if you do damage that can definitely be attributed to overclocking, so usually you're safe if you keep the OC within the CPU manufacturers specified voltage range.
This isn't an overclocking guide, but I will say that in recent i7's, it's usually best to raise clock to the desired level first, then see if you can squeeze hyperthreading back on safely. Hyperthreading will raise your score in 3DMark, but less than most clock speed gains. RAM speed and timings can also affect it, as can IMC clock, and basically all the usual culprits.
But now, I'm sure, you're wondering about the benching for information thing. After all, E-peenery is fun, but there's only so much you can say about it. If you want to learn something through benchmarking, you're going to need a few things.
1: Consistent Monitoring. Be it FRAPS for FPS/Frametimes, HWMonitor for temps, or something else, you must use software. Eyeballing it is worse than useless.
2: Consistent Playthrough. You need a replay, or a specific save file, or something that you always use for benchmarking. If you're getting an FPS recording of different things, it doesn't tell you much.
3: Objectivity. This is the key. If you aren't objective, you're useless. You need to be willing to get results you didn't want or expect.
Well, as for methodology, it depends a bit, based on what exactly you're wanting to test, but essentially you need to isolate a component. For CPU/RAM testing, graphics settings not requiring the CPU should be turned down, to include resolution. This ensures that the limiting factor will be your CPU. For RAM, you just get a baseline at a "Typical" setting, like CL9 1333 for DDR3, and work from there, using the same CPU clock.
If you want to isolate GPU, you crank the desired graphics settings, turn down anything you can involving the CPU, and hope you aren't trying to isolate the graphics card on an RTS. Won't happen unless you have a really screwy rig.
If you want to monitor temps, you need a consistent ambient temperature, and consistency in everything except what you're testing. Including what you use to heat up the PC, and how long you run it prior to measuring.
I know this hasn't really been long on details, but it's really more to get you thinking the right way.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Piracy: Or, Biting the Hand That Feeds You.
Ok, I've heard all the completely retarded excuses for stealing software, movies, music, and whatever else happens to tickle your fancy. They're all bullshit. You aren't some nifty political movement, sticking it to the evil corporate empire. You aren't protesting intrusive DRM, and if they released a demo, you'd still steal the full game.
Notice I'm saying steal. Not pirate, not copy, not download, not torrent. I've heard that load of crap too, and you make Downs seem smart if you think people are buying the arguments about it not being stealing. Shall we check the definition of steal, and see?
First two definitions for steal. Neither of those mentions physical possession. Intellectual PROPERTY. Rocket science, much? Hell, the second one even covers non-physical stuff, like ideas, or credit... So, apparently, you can steal without denying the rightful owner a physical object. All you have to do is to take something without permission or right. That sounds like what you call Piracy, to me.
So, my next question. If it's a protest of whatever, for whatever (made up) reason, you pretty much acknowledge you're getting it the wrong way, or else the act of getting it wouldn't be a protest, right? The only other way to protest would be to not get it at all. So, if you succeeded in justifying it as just being a copy, and not stealing, it would actually remove any value from the notion of protesting, because your action wasn't wrong at all, and you got the product.
Let's face it. The majority of people aren't stealing a game to play for free to see if they want to buy it. How do I know? Because that's moronic. There's other ways to find out if you want to play a game, especially in this day and age. You aren't stealing it because of intrusive DRM, either. I'd guess something like 0.001% of the people who steal a product to get around intrusive DRM have encountered an issue and known it at the time. Even counting me and all my friends, the worst issues I've seen with DRM have been occasional new CDs not playing in old players. I've never had China take over my computer to sell to the Daleks or whatever, as a result of installing a game.
The only thing you're really protesting is the right of people to earn money by selling games. Yes, you deny money to greedy stockholders. Those game companies wouldn't exist without greedy stockholders, you idiot. The greedy stockholders are all rich and can move their money anyways, so the people you're hurting are the people who lose jobs. The people who make it happen. The common people. So, you're just a prick, you thief.
Long story short, you're making the games industry less profitable than it should be, and now we get nothing but shitty console ports for PC. Thanks a lot, assholes. Rot in whatever hell is most applicable to your religious preference. Yes, they still make money off the buyers, the honest people. But we pay MORE for games, they put worse and worse DRM in place, and everything you claim to be fighting comes as a direct result of your actions. Or at least is justified by them. So go fuck yourselves.
Notice I'm saying steal. Not pirate, not copy, not download, not torrent. I've heard that load of crap too, and you make Downs seem smart if you think people are buying the arguments about it not being stealing. Shall we check the definition of steal, and see?
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
First two definitions for steal. Neither of those mentions physical possession. Intellectual PROPERTY. Rocket science, much? Hell, the second one even covers non-physical stuff, like ideas, or credit... So, apparently, you can steal without denying the rightful owner a physical object. All you have to do is to take something without permission or right. That sounds like what you call Piracy, to me.
So, my next question. If it's a protest of whatever, for whatever (made up) reason, you pretty much acknowledge you're getting it the wrong way, or else the act of getting it wouldn't be a protest, right? The only other way to protest would be to not get it at all. So, if you succeeded in justifying it as just being a copy, and not stealing, it would actually remove any value from the notion of protesting, because your action wasn't wrong at all, and you got the product.
Let's face it. The majority of people aren't stealing a game to play for free to see if they want to buy it. How do I know? Because that's moronic. There's other ways to find out if you want to play a game, especially in this day and age. You aren't stealing it because of intrusive DRM, either. I'd guess something like 0.001% of the people who steal a product to get around intrusive DRM have encountered an issue and known it at the time. Even counting me and all my friends, the worst issues I've seen with DRM have been occasional new CDs not playing in old players. I've never had China take over my computer to sell to the Daleks or whatever, as a result of installing a game.
The only thing you're really protesting is the right of people to earn money by selling games. Yes, you deny money to greedy stockholders. Those game companies wouldn't exist without greedy stockholders, you idiot. The greedy stockholders are all rich and can move their money anyways, so the people you're hurting are the people who lose jobs. The people who make it happen. The common people. So, you're just a prick, you thief.
Long story short, you're making the games industry less profitable than it should be, and now we get nothing but shitty console ports for PC. Thanks a lot, assholes. Rot in whatever hell is most applicable to your religious preference. Yes, they still make money off the buyers, the honest people. But we pay MORE for games, they put worse and worse DRM in place, and everything you claim to be fighting comes as a direct result of your actions. Or at least is justified by them. So go fuck yourselves.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Mac, Why I Hate It, and Why That's OK.
So, there's this funny misconception amongst Mac users. Apparently, there's something wrong with people hating Mac. Even for those of us with a legitimate reason. After all, disliking Mac is clearly a personal attack against all Mac users, or that's how they respond. Now, I'll admit, there's PC users who exacerbate the problem, and I've been one of them. But these days, I'd say that my reasons to hate Mac are legit, and people who disagree should be willing to accept them.
For starters, iMac. Take it out of the box, plug it in, and turn it on. Great. But it's a laptop GPU pushing more display than it should be. You can't open the case, you can't stick in a new GPU, you can't do anything with it. Aside from turn it on and maybe set it on your coffee table as some sort of centerpiece. But it is decorative. Can't change anything, can't tinker... yuck.
Second, OpenGL and game support. You just can't game on a Mac. Now I know not everybody plays a lot of games, and since most Valve and Blizzard games are available for Mac, some people don't need more. I do, and I need it to look good. DX11 with a high framerate doesn't happen on a Mac.
Pricing. The most frequently cited reason, and the least understood. Mac comes with good support, good build quality, good cooling, and good displays. But me, I'm fine with manufacturer warranty for components, and I can arrange good cooling. As far as displays? I don't need perfect color, just decent color and low response times. That's it. I can do that without a Mac, and get the stuff I do want with it.
Hardware... Yeah, you can't upgrade it, you can't customize it much, and it costs a fortune for what you get, from a pure performance standpoint.
Now, to revisit that feature thing. Can't tinker, but it just works. That's good for some people. Expensive, but you get awesome customer service. Can't upgrade, but you get amazing build quality. OpenGL and game support? Not everybody needs that, and for what Mac does, it's awesome. It just doesn't game.
For starters, iMac. Take it out of the box, plug it in, and turn it on. Great. But it's a laptop GPU pushing more display than it should be. You can't open the case, you can't stick in a new GPU, you can't do anything with it. Aside from turn it on and maybe set it on your coffee table as some sort of centerpiece. But it is decorative. Can't change anything, can't tinker... yuck.
Second, OpenGL and game support. You just can't game on a Mac. Now I know not everybody plays a lot of games, and since most Valve and Blizzard games are available for Mac, some people don't need more. I do, and I need it to look good. DX11 with a high framerate doesn't happen on a Mac.
Pricing. The most frequently cited reason, and the least understood. Mac comes with good support, good build quality, good cooling, and good displays. But me, I'm fine with manufacturer warranty for components, and I can arrange good cooling. As far as displays? I don't need perfect color, just decent color and low response times. That's it. I can do that without a Mac, and get the stuff I do want with it.
Hardware... Yeah, you can't upgrade it, you can't customize it much, and it costs a fortune for what you get, from a pure performance standpoint.
Now, to revisit that feature thing. Can't tinker, but it just works. That's good for some people. Expensive, but you get awesome customer service. Can't upgrade, but you get amazing build quality. OpenGL and game support? Not everybody needs that, and for what Mac does, it's awesome. It just doesn't game.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Cable Management: The Good, The Bad, and the OCD.
Cable management and routing in a PC can be a weird topic, because there's such a huge difference between pure substance, and smooth, sexy style. Now obviously, cable management in your computer can be very important for airflow and cooling, but it can have another function as well. If your cables are out of the way but accessible, you can have a much easier time moving things around, adding things, or troubleshooting.
Now I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts are freaking out right now, because I'm suggesting that there might be a drawback to having all but the last 3cm of cable invisible. That's ok, it still looks sexy, and unless you're actually adding a new component, it's not really that much more difficult.
For the lazy, understand: I'm not endorsing some tangled rats nest that looks like it was wired by a spaghetti chef that turns into a semi-solid wall between your fans and your components. If you do this, trained killer robot mongooses will track you down and stab you in the eyeballs with a rusty wooden spork. And you'll deserve it.
So we're clear, I'm all for functional cable management. Get those puppies out of the way of airflow. Of course, that means you have to understand the direction and purpose of airflow in your case, but that's a whole different topic. Use zip ties, stuff things behind the motherboard tray, hide unused cables, use sleeved cables. I don't care how you do it, but let the air move in the directions it needs to in your PC.
On the other hand, I refuse to do the OCD cable management. Gasp and shudder in horror if you so desire, but I just can't see the point in spending so much time hiding cables that my PC is obsolete by the time I install the OS. (Granted, it probably will be anyway, but that's a different rant.) Now I'll be the first to admit, it looks damn sexy, but it's just ridiculous, particularly considering the fact that it's really not helping that much, unless you need the room for plumbing.
Back to the rats nest people... did you know your PC will stay cleaner, operate cooler, make less noise, and possibly even perform better if you fix your wires? (Individual results may vary, rant shown with optional equipment. Professional airflow in a closed case, do not try this at home.)
Now I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts are freaking out right now, because I'm suggesting that there might be a drawback to having all but the last 3cm of cable invisible. That's ok, it still looks sexy, and unless you're actually adding a new component, it's not really that much more difficult.
For the lazy, understand: I'm not endorsing some tangled rats nest that looks like it was wired by a spaghetti chef that turns into a semi-solid wall between your fans and your components. If you do this, trained killer robot mongooses will track you down and stab you in the eyeballs with a rusty wooden spork. And you'll deserve it.
So we're clear, I'm all for functional cable management. Get those puppies out of the way of airflow. Of course, that means you have to understand the direction and purpose of airflow in your case, but that's a whole different topic. Use zip ties, stuff things behind the motherboard tray, hide unused cables, use sleeved cables. I don't care how you do it, but let the air move in the directions it needs to in your PC.
On the other hand, I refuse to do the OCD cable management. Gasp and shudder in horror if you so desire, but I just can't see the point in spending so much time hiding cables that my PC is obsolete by the time I install the OS. (Granted, it probably will be anyway, but that's a different rant.) Now I'll be the first to admit, it looks damn sexy, but it's just ridiculous, particularly considering the fact that it's really not helping that much, unless you need the room for plumbing.
Back to the rats nest people... did you know your PC will stay cleaner, operate cooler, make less noise, and possibly even perform better if you fix your wires? (Individual results may vary, rant shown with optional equipment. Professional airflow in a closed case, do not try this at home.)
Friday, September 16, 2011
There Are No Stupid Questions... really?
Ever heard the old adage, there are no stupid questions? I'm here to tell you, that's as big a load of crap as a C-130 carrying fertilizer. I've heard quite a few impressive ones, between various forums, and people I've met. Sadly, I see about twenty times more stupid answers than questions. I'm far from perfect, and I know it, but I usually try to say when I'm not sure about something, and I can admit it when I'm proven wrong.
For starters, a couple of the dumbest questions. Just today, I saw a good one. "I want to put the liquid cooler back into the computer. I bought an extra syringe of thermal paste, and the instructions tell me to remove old thermal compound reside with isopropyl. Is this really necessary? I was planning on just heating up the old paste with a hairdryer, adding a bit of new paste, and "gluing" my computer back together. Is it bad to mix compounds? Even if I do remove my old paste, I'm not going to use this isopropyl stuff."
Now for starters, how do you get old enough to be trusted with tools and electronics and not know how to google on the very slim off chance you've never seen a bottle of rubbing alcohol? More importantly, a hair dryer? Last time I checked, moving around hot air, if it's dry enough, can cause some pretty hefty static. Static, of course, being one of those things we try to avoid having near our CPU for some batshit crazy reason. I think we're trying to keep balloons from sticking to it or something.
Another time, back in the Army, I got asked this gem: "I have my PC hooked up to my bigscreen TV with HDMI, but the sound won't come out the TV speakers." So, of course, my first question: "Is it connected to an HDMI port on your graphics card, or are you using an adapter?" I'm sure you can figure the rest of this one out. I guess since HDMI carries audio, it should be able to extrapolate appropriate audio from a video signal, and play it, right? Makes sense to me.
And now, for a collection of a tiny fraction of the dumbest advice I've ever seen given on various tech boards.
Here's one talking about paging issues and HDD speed. One of my all-time favorites.
"They USED to be a lot slower than ram. But the fundamentals are no longer like this. You see, RAM bus is outside the chip, hence subject to abysmally slow speeds compared to intra-chip solutions. It also means that the speed growth of the connections is limited. And while harddrive read/write speeds are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, similarly how hard drive sizes are, the linear growth of ram speed cant keep up. So hard drives ultimately have come close to the speed of RAM read and write, only being limited by the same outside-chip fundamental problems."
Advice on cleaning old TIM:
"tbh you are ok with a slightly damp cloth as long as you are gentle+careful and dont run any power through the cpu until its totally dry"
And, the best solution for scareware I've ever seen!
"try to update drivers! if not, just clean all unnecesary files from youre hdd, or reinstall (reinstall is the last option) ofcours you may need to buy a new hdd, cause these kinfs of slowdowns are happening cause of HDD or drivers, sometimes it maybe something like a soundcard, or overheating!
change the thermo paste on youre CPU, cause it might be overheating! its called autothrottling, you can disable that, just google it, but it maybe risky!"
So, let's get into explaining this really complicated concept, for anybody considering giving out tech advice. If you aren't sure, GOOGLE IT. Please. You'll save time explaining why you're wrong, and lower the potential of turning somebodies PC into a collection of overpriced paperweights. It isn't rocket science, hell it isn't even computer science. It's a combination of common sense and common courtesy. It isn't your PC, you don't have the right to ruin it by being a moron.
If you aren't willing to do a photo guide of whatever advice you're giving with YOUR PC, don't tell someone else to do it. I mean seriously, Information Technology isn't an event in the Special Olympics, so why try out?
For starters, a couple of the dumbest questions. Just today, I saw a good one. "I want to put the liquid cooler back into the computer. I bought an extra syringe of thermal paste, and the instructions tell me to remove old thermal compound reside with isopropyl. Is this really necessary? I was planning on just heating up the old paste with a hairdryer, adding a bit of new paste, and "gluing" my computer back together. Is it bad to mix compounds? Even if I do remove my old paste, I'm not going to use this isopropyl stuff."
Now for starters, how do you get old enough to be trusted with tools and electronics and not know how to google on the very slim off chance you've never seen a bottle of rubbing alcohol? More importantly, a hair dryer? Last time I checked, moving around hot air, if it's dry enough, can cause some pretty hefty static. Static, of course, being one of those things we try to avoid having near our CPU for some batshit crazy reason. I think we're trying to keep balloons from sticking to it or something.
Another time, back in the Army, I got asked this gem: "I have my PC hooked up to my bigscreen TV with HDMI, but the sound won't come out the TV speakers." So, of course, my first question: "Is it connected to an HDMI port on your graphics card, or are you using an adapter?" I'm sure you can figure the rest of this one out. I guess since HDMI carries audio, it should be able to extrapolate appropriate audio from a video signal, and play it, right? Makes sense to me.
And now, for a collection of a tiny fraction of the dumbest advice I've ever seen given on various tech boards.
Here's one talking about paging issues and HDD speed. One of my all-time favorites.
"They USED to be a lot slower than ram. But the fundamentals are no longer like this. You see, RAM bus is outside the chip, hence subject to abysmally slow speeds compared to intra-chip solutions. It also means that the speed growth of the connections is limited. And while harddrive read/write speeds are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, similarly how hard drive sizes are, the linear growth of ram speed cant keep up. So hard drives ultimately have come close to the speed of RAM read and write, only being limited by the same outside-chip fundamental problems."
Advice on cleaning old TIM:
"tbh you are ok with a slightly damp cloth as long as you are gentle+careful and dont run any power through the cpu until its totally dry"
And, the best solution for scareware I've ever seen!
"try to update drivers! if not, just clean all unnecesary files from youre hdd, or reinstall (reinstall is the last option) ofcours you may need to buy a new hdd, cause these kinfs of slowdowns are happening cause of HDD or drivers, sometimes it maybe something like a soundcard, or overheating!
change the thermo paste on youre CPU, cause it might be overheating! its called autothrottling, you can disable that, just google it, but it maybe risky!"
So, let's get into explaining this really complicated concept, for anybody considering giving out tech advice. If you aren't sure, GOOGLE IT. Please. You'll save time explaining why you're wrong, and lower the potential of turning somebodies PC into a collection of overpriced paperweights. It isn't rocket science, hell it isn't even computer science. It's a combination of common sense and common courtesy. It isn't your PC, you don't have the right to ruin it by being a moron.
If you aren't willing to do a photo guide of whatever advice you're giving with YOUR PC, don't tell someone else to do it. I mean seriously, Information Technology isn't an event in the Special Olympics, so why try out?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A Fool and His Money: Old CPUs.
One of the hot topics always popping up in discussion, is, of course, price/performance, value, and pure performance of CPUs. People try to generalize and say AMD is always better price/performance, even if Intel is slightly better. Or people point to clock speed and number of cores, like those are the only two relevant statistics in a CPU.
Since nobody with three functional brain cells is going to say AMD can outperform Intel these days, we can skip who has pure performance. That just leaves value and price/performance comparisons. I'm going to start those two off with value.
What is value, in terms of CPU, or computer parts in general? Well, there's several categories that have to be weighed here. Performance, price, needs, additional associated costs (motherboard, PSU, etc.), and upgrade path. The additional associated costs come into this, because lets face it, it doesn't do you any good to save $20 on CPU, and pay an additional $40 on motherboard. It does make you look kind of dumb, but that's about it.
Now, only you can determine the weight of the factors in value, but it's good to think about them anyways, when considering new components. Is it worth an additional $20 to have a socket with more CPUs coming for it? Are you willing to pay 15% more for a 30% improvement? Do you actually need the 6 physical cores of that PhenomII when you're only planning to play games, most of which are optimized for 2?
While you're deciding on the subjective value of components, price/performance is pretty much guaranteed to come up. There's only one real way to handle that. You need direct comparison benchmarks for the task you want to do, assign the lower value 100%, and determine the percentage of the higher performer. Then, do the same with the prices of CPU and motherboard combined, and see whether the additional performance is a higher percentage than additional price. For example, if the Intel configuration is 25% better for your primary task, and costs 15% more than the AMD configuration, the Intel build is better price/performance.
Why do I say you have to combine motherboard price with the CPU price? Because, we're determining price/performance, and since they can't go in the same motherboard, the only logical way to compare is to combine all the factors that will be different, and compare price/performance that way.
Granted, motherboard can affect performance, depending on features, but most of the features that can really affect performance, like SATA 6Gb/s, or extra power phases to OC cost more. Once you're looking at adding to the price for raw performance, you should stop comparing price/performance, and just shoot for performance again.
Since nobody with three functional brain cells is going to say AMD can outperform Intel these days, we can skip who has pure performance. That just leaves value and price/performance comparisons. I'm going to start those two off with value.
What is value, in terms of CPU, or computer parts in general? Well, there's several categories that have to be weighed here. Performance, price, needs, additional associated costs (motherboard, PSU, etc.), and upgrade path. The additional associated costs come into this, because lets face it, it doesn't do you any good to save $20 on CPU, and pay an additional $40 on motherboard. It does make you look kind of dumb, but that's about it.
Now, only you can determine the weight of the factors in value, but it's good to think about them anyways, when considering new components. Is it worth an additional $20 to have a socket with more CPUs coming for it? Are you willing to pay 15% more for a 30% improvement? Do you actually need the 6 physical cores of that PhenomII when you're only planning to play games, most of which are optimized for 2?
While you're deciding on the subjective value of components, price/performance is pretty much guaranteed to come up. There's only one real way to handle that. You need direct comparison benchmarks for the task you want to do, assign the lower value 100%, and determine the percentage of the higher performer. Then, do the same with the prices of CPU and motherboard combined, and see whether the additional performance is a higher percentage than additional price. For example, if the Intel configuration is 25% better for your primary task, and costs 15% more than the AMD configuration, the Intel build is better price/performance.
Why do I say you have to combine motherboard price with the CPU price? Because, we're determining price/performance, and since they can't go in the same motherboard, the only logical way to compare is to combine all the factors that will be different, and compare price/performance that way.
Granted, motherboard can affect performance, depending on features, but most of the features that can really affect performance, like SATA 6Gb/s, or extra power phases to OC cost more. Once you're looking at adding to the price for raw performance, you should stop comparing price/performance, and just shoot for performance again.
My Gaming History
Now I know this may seem a little bit niche, but I think the development of gaming habits in a person can be fairly telling. Now to start off, I have to qualify: I gave my parents their first TV after I moved out. Any console games prior to PS2 and Xbox, I played at a friends house, and may not have finished, even if I enjoyed it.
So, lets start with the earliest video games. At my friends house when I was growing up, Rampage, Mario, Duck Hunt, and Battletoads on the NES. We played those quite a bit. I also played Sonic on my friends Game Gear, but I never really got into it. I didn't get to play Nintendo much back then, and we're talking '90-'91ish. I was damn young.
I got a little bit older, and got a game boy, along with Ninja Turtles, Fall of the Foot Clan. I played that one quite a lot, and liked it. I played Tetris, F1, Donkey Kong Land, and Super Mario Land. Super Nintendo was reasonably common at this point, and for that, I played a lot of Super Mario World, mostly.
Well, around this time, my dad had a computer, but it was a Linux box (and this was still early '90s), so the only things I could play were various old arcade games on MAME, Nethack, and Zork. Until I discovered MUD's. I was looking for games for Linux based off of Tolkien's work, and I found a game called The Burning Eye. Instantly hooked. I couldn't possibly remember all my characters, although I do remember sucking at the game at that point.
Somewhere along in there, Pokemon Red and Blue came out in the US. I got Red for my birthday, and played it a TON. Me and all my friends had it, and we did the typical young gamer nerd thing. This part of my life, I played occasional Starfox64 with a friend, Ecco the Dolphin on a borrowed Game Gear, Rampart, Zaxxon, and Rygar (I think I'm getting these names right...) for an old Atari Lynx my dad got me at a church auction. Other than that, still MUDding, and playing Nethack.
Well, as I got a bit older, I stopped sucking so bad at the MUD's, (Burning Eye had renamed to Rebirth of Arda at this point.) At this point, my game boy games of choice were Pokemon Gold, Golden Sun, and Tactics Ogre, the Knight of Lodis. I also finally had a Windows box that I bought with summer job money. I played Alien vs Predator 1 and 2, Age of Empires 2, Quake 3 Arena, Mechwarrior 2 and 3, and Tie Fighter.
Well, I slowly but surely reached 2004, still playing pretty much the same games, although less often, and went to Basic Training. Skip to 2005-2006, while I was in Iraq, I had a laptop, and went back to some old favorites, including Nethack, and some new stuff, like Galactic Civilization 2. I was on one of the better camps, with real electricity, so my Xbox and PS2 were getting love, Kingdom Hearts 2, Magna Carta Tears of Blood, Halo 1 and 2, Forza. Anything.
End of 2006-Early 2007, back Stateside, God of War 2, Tekken 5, Soul Caliber 3, but I wasn't really playing all that often, I was busy with... other pursuits. I didn't really play many games between 2007 and 2009, but in '09, I finally built myself a new PC, and was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and WoW. WoW did it's thing for a while, then I got Crysis, Killing Floor, AvP 2010, and a few other shooters to break up the WoW monotony.
Once Starcraft 2 came out, I got it, and played a bit, got sidetracked by League of Legends, smashed DA2, shelved Crysis2, and now I mostly just watch competitive SC2 when I'm not casually playing whatever.
Out of all of those, I'd say the most memorable, and my most loved, would be: The Burning Eye/Rebirth of Arda, followed by Nethack, Tie Fighter, Golden Sun, and Starcraft 2. Even though I barely play SC2, and I suck at it, I still love it. The games are fast paced, the casters are entertaining, and the community is excellent. I spend a lot of time over at Teamliquid.net, particularly on the Tech Support board there.
I hope this reminds some of you about all those oldies but goodies, the games that shaped you and your gaming tastes. It's fun to look back on it now, and try to figure out which games developed my gaming interests. I hope this wasn't too excessively long or boring, but for me, it's been a fun trip down memory lane.
So, lets start with the earliest video games. At my friends house when I was growing up, Rampage, Mario, Duck Hunt, and Battletoads on the NES. We played those quite a bit. I also played Sonic on my friends Game Gear, but I never really got into it. I didn't get to play Nintendo much back then, and we're talking '90-'91ish. I was damn young.
I got a little bit older, and got a game boy, along with Ninja Turtles, Fall of the Foot Clan. I played that one quite a lot, and liked it. I played Tetris, F1, Donkey Kong Land, and Super Mario Land. Super Nintendo was reasonably common at this point, and for that, I played a lot of Super Mario World, mostly.
Well, around this time, my dad had a computer, but it was a Linux box (and this was still early '90s), so the only things I could play were various old arcade games on MAME, Nethack, and Zork. Until I discovered MUD's. I was looking for games for Linux based off of Tolkien's work, and I found a game called The Burning Eye. Instantly hooked. I couldn't possibly remember all my characters, although I do remember sucking at the game at that point.
Somewhere along in there, Pokemon Red and Blue came out in the US. I got Red for my birthday, and played it a TON. Me and all my friends had it, and we did the typical young gamer nerd thing. This part of my life, I played occasional Starfox64 with a friend, Ecco the Dolphin on a borrowed Game Gear, Rampart, Zaxxon, and Rygar (I think I'm getting these names right...) for an old Atari Lynx my dad got me at a church auction. Other than that, still MUDding, and playing Nethack.
Well, as I got a bit older, I stopped sucking so bad at the MUD's, (Burning Eye had renamed to Rebirth of Arda at this point.) At this point, my game boy games of choice were Pokemon Gold, Golden Sun, and Tactics Ogre, the Knight of Lodis. I also finally had a Windows box that I bought with summer job money. I played Alien vs Predator 1 and 2, Age of Empires 2, Quake 3 Arena, Mechwarrior 2 and 3, and Tie Fighter.
Well, I slowly but surely reached 2004, still playing pretty much the same games, although less often, and went to Basic Training. Skip to 2005-2006, while I was in Iraq, I had a laptop, and went back to some old favorites, including Nethack, and some new stuff, like Galactic Civilization 2. I was on one of the better camps, with real electricity, so my Xbox and PS2 were getting love, Kingdom Hearts 2, Magna Carta Tears of Blood, Halo 1 and 2, Forza. Anything.
End of 2006-Early 2007, back Stateside, God of War 2, Tekken 5, Soul Caliber 3, but I wasn't really playing all that often, I was busy with... other pursuits. I didn't really play many games between 2007 and 2009, but in '09, I finally built myself a new PC, and was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and WoW. WoW did it's thing for a while, then I got Crysis, Killing Floor, AvP 2010, and a few other shooters to break up the WoW monotony.
Once Starcraft 2 came out, I got it, and played a bit, got sidetracked by League of Legends, smashed DA2, shelved Crysis2, and now I mostly just watch competitive SC2 when I'm not casually playing whatever.
Out of all of those, I'd say the most memorable, and my most loved, would be: The Burning Eye/Rebirth of Arda, followed by Nethack, Tie Fighter, Golden Sun, and Starcraft 2. Even though I barely play SC2, and I suck at it, I still love it. The games are fast paced, the casters are entertaining, and the community is excellent. I spend a lot of time over at Teamliquid.net, particularly on the Tech Support board there.
I hope this reminds some of you about all those oldies but goodies, the games that shaped you and your gaming tastes. It's fun to look back on it now, and try to figure out which games developed my gaming interests. I hope this wasn't too excessively long or boring, but for me, it's been a fun trip down memory lane.
Max FPS Makes My Head Hertz
We've all seen the argument, "How many Frames per second can the human eye see?". The trouble is, while everybody seems to have a theory, nobody seems to be able to show concrete evidence to back it up. Instead of trying to convince you to agree with me based on no information, instead I'm going to discuss hardware limitations, and why they render the argument moot for most people.
If you know much about displays, you know they have a refresh rate, listed in Hertz(Hz). Hertz means cycles per second, so a 60Hz refresh rate means your display refreshes 60 times per second. In other words, no matter how many frames per second your GPU draws, only 60 can be shown on your screen. 60Hz is by far the most common refresh rate currently, although 3d capable displays and some others are capable of a 120Hz refresh rate.
Current video card drivers let you set video output rate, usually limiting you to a maximum of your display's refresh rate, but you can also lower it, which has some advantages for certain video enthusiasts. This is kind of outside the point, however. What's much more important is this: Your refresh rate is a hardware limitation on frame rate. There is no physical way to properly display a larger number of FPS. You can, however improperly display them.
Improper display will show itself in screen tearing. Essentially, your display is trying to show parts of two different frames at the same time, because it's receiving too many frames per second. This is where Vertical Sync comes into play. Vertical sync (also known as Vsync) lets you limit your rendered FPS to a fraction of your displays refresh rate. In other words, the most FPS you can get with Vsync enabled on a 60Hz display is 60 FPS.
You may be wondering, perhaps, exactly why I'm blathering on about vertical sync and refresh rates. Well, it becomes much more useful when you consider that no matter what actual frame rates the human eye is capable of differentiating, the human eye absolutely does notice sudden change. The human eye detects movement, and it is quite capable of noticing if the displayed frame rate suddenly drops from 60 to 45, which can happen quite easily with Vsync, if your rendered FPS drops below 60.
Since we don't want rendered FPS to drop below 60, some overhead in average frame rate is needed, to keep 60 as the minimum, if we're going to use Vsync. This is where excessive graphics power comes in on a display capped at 60Hz. In other words, while being able to get 90 FPS average may not make the game look any better than when it runs at 60 FPS, it does make the game look better by virtue of keeping it from making a sudden sharp dip. This is a hardware limitation. That means that any added perceived smoothness is purely a placebo effect. Your mind is playing tricks on you, plain and simple.
Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts on perceived framerate? It depends on the game, your PC, and you. If your PC has low input lag, and doesn't stutter, a fairly low framerate can look good in most cases. However, depending on the perception of speed being rendered, a higher framerate may be needed to make fast "motion" appear smooth, unless motion blur is rendered by the game.
If you know much about displays, you know they have a refresh rate, listed in Hertz(Hz). Hertz means cycles per second, so a 60Hz refresh rate means your display refreshes 60 times per second. In other words, no matter how many frames per second your GPU draws, only 60 can be shown on your screen. 60Hz is by far the most common refresh rate currently, although 3d capable displays and some others are capable of a 120Hz refresh rate.
Current video card drivers let you set video output rate, usually limiting you to a maximum of your display's refresh rate, but you can also lower it, which has some advantages for certain video enthusiasts. This is kind of outside the point, however. What's much more important is this: Your refresh rate is a hardware limitation on frame rate. There is no physical way to properly display a larger number of FPS. You can, however improperly display them.
Improper display will show itself in screen tearing. Essentially, your display is trying to show parts of two different frames at the same time, because it's receiving too many frames per second. This is where Vertical Sync comes into play. Vertical sync (also known as Vsync) lets you limit your rendered FPS to a fraction of your displays refresh rate. In other words, the most FPS you can get with Vsync enabled on a 60Hz display is 60 FPS.
You may be wondering, perhaps, exactly why I'm blathering on about vertical sync and refresh rates. Well, it becomes much more useful when you consider that no matter what actual frame rates the human eye is capable of differentiating, the human eye absolutely does notice sudden change. The human eye detects movement, and it is quite capable of noticing if the displayed frame rate suddenly drops from 60 to 45, which can happen quite easily with Vsync, if your rendered FPS drops below 60.
Since we don't want rendered FPS to drop below 60, some overhead in average frame rate is needed, to keep 60 as the minimum, if we're going to use Vsync. This is where excessive graphics power comes in on a display capped at 60Hz. In other words, while being able to get 90 FPS average may not make the game look any better than when it runs at 60 FPS, it does make the game look better by virtue of keeping it from making a sudden sharp dip. This is a hardware limitation. That means that any added perceived smoothness is purely a placebo effect. Your mind is playing tricks on you, plain and simple.
Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts on perceived framerate? It depends on the game, your PC, and you. If your PC has low input lag, and doesn't stutter, a fairly low framerate can look good in most cases. However, depending on the perception of speed being rendered, a higher framerate may be needed to make fast "motion" appear smooth, unless motion blur is rendered by the game.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Peripheral Vision: Gaming Keyboard and Mouse
This is a topic that comes up a lot in discussion, especially in the various competitive PC gaming communities. People will see Razer, TTEsports, or SteelSeries sponsoring players, and they'll look into buying the high end, fancy, and oh yeah, kind of pricey peripherals. Of course, as soon as someone asks, the guy who thinks that his budget should determine every other person's spending habits shows up. (An idiotic asshat on the internet? No!)
So, here come the arguments: Overpriced, gimmicky, doesn't matter at all, don't need extra buttons, better stuff won't make you play like a pro! Well no shit, Sherlock, you figured that out all by yourself, did you? I thought that since Nike shoes let me get up from making a Krispy Kreme shut down early for the day and run a marathon, that a Razer Abyssus would make me the best pro gamer ever!
Obviously, no, you don't need to pay more for flashy LED's, teflon mouse feet, 5600 DPI mice, and a Windows button you can turn off. But you know what else I didn't need to pay for? My whole damn PC. I could buy a netbook for browsing the internet. Hell, these days you can use your phone. So my gaming rig is a luxury purchase. And like every other luxury purchase, there's nothing wrong with spending a little bit more for features that help just a little, or look sexy.
Now, obviously, the question becomes one of value. Well, last time I checked, value is relatively subjective, particularly in the leisure time/luxury purchase department. I can't benchmark how comfortable my mouse is, and if I did, it wouldn't mean a damn thing for someone else. But if it makes my hobby a little easier, or a little more comfortable, then it's cool. If I decide I like the flashy LED's? That's my decision, and you and your notion of what I should do with my money can go to hell.
Then you hear: Higher mouse sensitivity doesn't matter. Well, yeah, it does. If you take one of those old fashioned mice with the ball underneath, and used nothing but software mouse acceleration to change how fast it moves, and give it to the best pro gamer out there, he's going to do worse. It's like handing a chainsaw to a surgeon.
So, all in all, what do I think about fancy gaming peripherals? If you can afford them, and your rig doesn't need the money dropped in more, go for it. If it makes your hobby easier or more enjoyable, that's awesome. This may seem a bit strange after the way I ripped into Water-Cooled RAM kits, but as long as you know what you're getting, who really cares what you get? You should, and nobody else.
So, here come the arguments: Overpriced, gimmicky, doesn't matter at all, don't need extra buttons, better stuff won't make you play like a pro! Well no shit, Sherlock, you figured that out all by yourself, did you? I thought that since Nike shoes let me get up from making a Krispy Kreme shut down early for the day and run a marathon, that a Razer Abyssus would make me the best pro gamer ever!
Obviously, no, you don't need to pay more for flashy LED's, teflon mouse feet, 5600 DPI mice, and a Windows button you can turn off. But you know what else I didn't need to pay for? My whole damn PC. I could buy a netbook for browsing the internet. Hell, these days you can use your phone. So my gaming rig is a luxury purchase. And like every other luxury purchase, there's nothing wrong with spending a little bit more for features that help just a little, or look sexy.
Now, obviously, the question becomes one of value. Well, last time I checked, value is relatively subjective, particularly in the leisure time/luxury purchase department. I can't benchmark how comfortable my mouse is, and if I did, it wouldn't mean a damn thing for someone else. But if it makes my hobby a little easier, or a little more comfortable, then it's cool. If I decide I like the flashy LED's? That's my decision, and you and your notion of what I should do with my money can go to hell.
Then you hear: Higher mouse sensitivity doesn't matter. Well, yeah, it does. If you take one of those old fashioned mice with the ball underneath, and used nothing but software mouse acceleration to change how fast it moves, and give it to the best pro gamer out there, he's going to do worse. It's like handing a chainsaw to a surgeon.
So, all in all, what do I think about fancy gaming peripherals? If you can afford them, and your rig doesn't need the money dropped in more, go for it. If it makes your hobby easier or more enjoyable, that's awesome. This may seem a bit strange after the way I ripped into Water-Cooled RAM kits, but as long as you know what you're getting, who really cares what you get? You should, and nobody else.
A Fool and His Money, RAM Edition.
So, generally, there's a lot of gimmicky stuff available as far as "High Performance Memory" goes. And while there are some slight benefits depending on what you're doing to tighter latencies or higher bandwidth, the real fact of the matter is that on systems that aren't pretty top-end, you could spend the extra money on something else for more performance.
Now, obviously, we have stuff like memory kits that are tested at say, 1600, 1866, 2000, or even 2133 Mhz. That's great and all, but what they fail to tell you in the big, bold, easy to read part of the text, is that... oh yeah, some memory needed to be tested at up to X voltage, which may or may not actually be safe for your CPU's Integrated Memory Controller, or your motherboard's North Bridge and Voltage Regulation.
Next up, heat sinks on RAM! Why? Because obviously, the Enthusiast pumping excess voltage through his hardware is going to make his RAM really really hot, right? Well, the funny thing is, those chips are usually rated for temperatures of something like ninety degrees Celcius. If you didn't know, that is hot as hell. Like, second or third degree burns hot as hell, no sweat. Now granted, cooler temps can help stability on RAM, yes. But really, unless you're pumping some stupid high voltages with bad airflow in your case, odds are your RAM is staying plenty cool without a heat sink.
So, all that being said, yes, some people actually are pushing systems hard enough that heat sinks make sense. I would guess that's somewhere around 8-10% of the enthusiast community, which is probably under 0.01% of people who own PCs. So, those people can buy RAM with heat sinks, and maybe even add some fans or whatever. Cool, no problem.
Now we get to the really fun part. Despite the fact that memory cooling as a needed component is already only slightly less of a niche product than Purina Pet Rock Chow, someone found another way to profit off of the masses of gamers who think that running games makes it vital to install automatic halon fire suppression systems in their rigs.
What is this amusing product? Liquid-cooled memory kits. Now I'll go ahead and credit the manufacturer, Kingston HyperX. These guys already advertise Starcraft 2 pros that they sponsor using their products as nail files and combs, but what are they going to do with this? Beer bong? What the hell, Kingston? The only use I can imagine for this is making your rig look badass with UV reactive coolant.
I think the thing that really bothers me the most is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of gamers will spend a pile on adding this stuff to their already pointless plumbing loop, either under the assumption that it will help their performance (usually, NO) or assuming that since Kingston HyperX supports E-sports, that they should buy their products.
Now I will admit, supporting sponsors is all well and good for the growth of E-Sports, if you're into competitive gaming on any front. But lets face reality. They don't put money into pro gaming teams because they really like E-Sports. They do it to engender that exact response out of you and make money. So if you don't buy the craziest products they make, it doesn't mean you're hurting E-Sports, I promise.
Now, obviously, we have stuff like memory kits that are tested at say, 1600, 1866, 2000, or even 2133 Mhz. That's great and all, but what they fail to tell you in the big, bold, easy to read part of the text, is that... oh yeah, some memory needed to be tested at up to X voltage, which may or may not actually be safe for your CPU's Integrated Memory Controller, or your motherboard's North Bridge and Voltage Regulation.
Next up, heat sinks on RAM! Why? Because obviously, the Enthusiast pumping excess voltage through his hardware is going to make his RAM really really hot, right? Well, the funny thing is, those chips are usually rated for temperatures of something like ninety degrees Celcius. If you didn't know, that is hot as hell. Like, second or third degree burns hot as hell, no sweat. Now granted, cooler temps can help stability on RAM, yes. But really, unless you're pumping some stupid high voltages with bad airflow in your case, odds are your RAM is staying plenty cool without a heat sink.
So, all that being said, yes, some people actually are pushing systems hard enough that heat sinks make sense. I would guess that's somewhere around 8-10% of the enthusiast community, which is probably under 0.01% of people who own PCs. So, those people can buy RAM with heat sinks, and maybe even add some fans or whatever. Cool, no problem.
Now we get to the really fun part. Despite the fact that memory cooling as a needed component is already only slightly less of a niche product than Purina Pet Rock Chow, someone found another way to profit off of the masses of gamers who think that running games makes it vital to install automatic halon fire suppression systems in their rigs.
What is this amusing product? Liquid-cooled memory kits. Now I'll go ahead and credit the manufacturer, Kingston HyperX. These guys already advertise Starcraft 2 pros that they sponsor using their products as nail files and combs, but what are they going to do with this? Beer bong? What the hell, Kingston? The only use I can imagine for this is making your rig look badass with UV reactive coolant.
I think the thing that really bothers me the most is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of gamers will spend a pile on adding this stuff to their already pointless plumbing loop, either under the assumption that it will help their performance (usually, NO) or assuming that since Kingston HyperX supports E-sports, that they should buy their products.
Now I will admit, supporting sponsors is all well and good for the growth of E-Sports, if you're into competitive gaming on any front. But lets face reality. They don't put money into pro gaming teams because they really like E-Sports. They do it to engender that exact response out of you and make money. So if you don't buy the craziest products they make, it doesn't mean you're hurting E-Sports, I promise.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
StarCraft 2 and RAM Speed, what you need to know
We all know that RAM clock and timings are usually not super critical for gaming. [1] [2] (Exceptions mostly including IGP performance.) However, StarCraft 2 is much more CPU dependent than a lot of games, and that stuff has to go somewhere before your display. To satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to bench some RAM clocks and timings, to see if it's worth paying a little more for low voltage memory to OC it and tighten timings.
Obviously, some of this will be CPU dependent due to recent processors having the memory controller on-die instead of using the motherboard, so don't take my results as gospel for your system.
Methodology: Replay of maxed supply vs maxed supply of Zerglings Attack-Moved towards each other on the Unit Tester custom map, using FRAPS to record framerates. All graphics
settings on low except CPU settings on Ultra and Models on high. 30 Second FRAPS bench run
with Start at the same time each test, following the replay camera.
Test Rig: i7 930 HT disabled, Turbo disabled. 6GB OCZ Reapers at listed clocks/timings
SLI GTX 460 @ 820Mhz
Memory timings to be tested: 9 9 9 30 and 6 9 6 30.
Not sure why OCZ suggests the 8 9 8 and 7 9 7, but they do, and I stuck with the
formula for CL6 and it still worked. Since 1333 CL9 is sort of "standard" for DDR3,
I'm going to call that framerate 100%, and performance for the others will also be
shown as percentage of that performance, for easier assessment.
FPS Shown in Min/Max/Average
2.8Ghz CPU Clock
1066 CL9 FPS: 28/133/61.6--95%
1066 CL6 FPS: 28/134/62.6--96.6%
1333 CL9 FPS: 30/139/64.8--100%
1333 CL6 FPS: 30/139/65.2--100.6%
1600 CL9 FPS: 31/142/67.2--103.7%
1600 CL6 FPS: 31/142/67.3--103.8%
For giggles, the same test with my normal OC @3.8Ghz w/ 3600 Uncore.
1600 CL6 FPS: 50/193/95.1--146.7%
Conclusion: SC2 pretty much couldn't care less what your timings are. Clock speed, on the other hand, makes a few percent difference in the thick of the action, and those couple of frames minimum can be a big difference when they're fairly low like the high supply situations. Minimum framerate can be what really counts, since that's where you suffer the most, and in the thick of the fight, the average definitely seems to benefit from faster RAM.
Since DDR3 1333 CL9 tends to run ~$8 US/GB or less (for the rationally priced stuff), I'd say if you can keep it to ~$2 over that to get some low voltage RAM, or better binned memory tested at 1600Mhz, it might be worth the step up.
Aside from that, you're still looking better off with a healthy overclock on your CPU than you are with faster memory. If you're looking at any more than a few dollars premium, you'd do better to spend the money on a faster CPU, or a better mobo and cooler to OC with.
Obviously, this is for the people who care about price/performance in the slightest. If you happen to have a license for 3DMark, if your desktop has more benchmark utilities than games, obviously you don't care much anyways, because you'll get something, anything, out of it. So it's worth it. But if you can only raise the clock or tighten the timings, but not both... for SC2, at least, the answer is clear.
Obviously, some of this will be CPU dependent due to recent processors having the memory controller on-die instead of using the motherboard, so don't take my results as gospel for your system.
Methodology: Replay of maxed supply vs maxed supply of Zerglings Attack-Moved towards each other on the Unit Tester custom map, using FRAPS to record framerates. All graphics
settings on low except CPU settings on Ultra and Models on high. 30 Second FRAPS bench run
with Start at the same time each test, following the replay camera.
Test Rig: i7 930 HT disabled, Turbo disabled. 6GB OCZ Reapers at listed clocks/timings
SLI GTX 460 @ 820Mhz
Memory timings to be tested: 9 9 9 30 and 6 9 6 30.
Not sure why OCZ suggests the 8 9 8 and 7 9 7, but they do, and I stuck with the
formula for CL6 and it still worked. Since 1333 CL9 is sort of "standard" for DDR3,
I'm going to call that framerate 100%, and performance for the others will also be
shown as percentage of that performance, for easier assessment.
FPS Shown in Min/Max/Average
2.8Ghz CPU Clock
1066 CL9 FPS: 28/133/61.6--95%
1066 CL6 FPS: 28/134/62.6--96.6%
1333 CL9 FPS: 30/139/64.8--100%
1333 CL6 FPS: 30/139/65.2--100.6%
1600 CL9 FPS: 31/142/67.2--103.7%
1600 CL6 FPS: 31/142/67.3--103.8%
For giggles, the same test with my normal OC @3.8Ghz w/ 3600 Uncore.
1600 CL6 FPS: 50/193/95.1--146.7%
Conclusion: SC2 pretty much couldn't care less what your timings are. Clock speed, on the other hand, makes a few percent difference in the thick of the action, and those couple of frames minimum can be a big difference when they're fairly low like the high supply situations. Minimum framerate can be what really counts, since that's where you suffer the most, and in the thick of the fight, the average definitely seems to benefit from faster RAM.
Since DDR3 1333 CL9 tends to run ~$8 US/GB or less (for the rationally priced stuff), I'd say if you can keep it to ~$2 over that to get some low voltage RAM, or better binned memory tested at 1600Mhz, it might be worth the step up.
Aside from that, you're still looking better off with a healthy overclock on your CPU than you are with faster memory. If you're looking at any more than a few dollars premium, you'd do better to spend the money on a faster CPU, or a better mobo and cooler to OC with.
Obviously, this is for the people who care about price/performance in the slightest. If you happen to have a license for 3DMark, if your desktop has more benchmark utilities than games, obviously you don't care much anyways, because you'll get something, anything, out of it. So it's worth it. But if you can only raise the clock or tighten the timings, but not both... for SC2, at least, the answer is clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)