New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by pengs

I'd go with Sandy Bridge-E if you really want the CPU to last you 4-5 years. A 2600K will do well, but by year 5 you'l most likely be limping. I do a platform revision every 2.5 years but I buy mainstream CPU's. They usually run me 200-225 dollars every time, but I enjoy rebuilding. If you do get the Gen3 board, you're going to need an Ivy Bridge CPU to use the PCIE 3.0 ability. Ivy won't be out till' April. So you could *ahem* do the same thing I'm doing. Buy a 2500K,...
Heh heh heh. 4x AA Deferred. Kill that and keep AA post medium. ...I laugh because I care... and 2x AA deferred takes 60FPS and turns it into 50FPS. 4x turns 50 into 47FPS. So you can imagine the degradation accompanied with 4x MSAA.
If you run that test without again without the other devices on a receive the same results, upgrading is most likely moot. They cannot provide you with enough bandwidth to begin with so upgrading will only help if your ISP runs tier-ing. Talk to your ISP. If your supposed to be getting 512K up, your not close.
So that is showing you that your router looks lag free . If you shut off everything else and run the test again and get the same type of results, call your ISP. They are or your modem is the reason for the lag. If your lag goes away after everything is shut off, there is a device on your network straining your upload connection (torrents ect.)
Eek. Turn off everything besides your computer and run the test again. The upload speed is a blinking alarm. You need to have some upload throughput to keep latency low.
When you start getting the lag, bring up a command prompt, type 'tracert 8.8.8.8'. The first hop will be your router and most likely be a 192.168.x.x.The second hop will be your cable/DSL modem, the third hop will be the out of your local network. Give us the results if you can.
It should be the other way around. 60Hz should be the thing giving you headaches, or at least for me.Is your brightness too high?Ah, there ya go. That's the reason. Fluidity is usually easier on the eye.
Though he did already state that he's dipping into the 20's on Crysis real world and showed a solid CPU bottleneck. If he goes to a 1100T and overclocks it to 4.2GHz, he may see a 50% - 65ish % increase on those minimums. If he's cool with 175ish dollars and 30-35FPS minimum, then I'd go for it..The convenient thing about most benchmarks is that they don't show the minimums. Average frame rate usually looks pretty good on any CPU until you have those drops and then a CPU...
It depends heavily on the game. If the game uses 2 threads, like Crysis, you're going to benefit the most from an Intel part. If the game is BF3, 6 cores are going to help because the engine uses up to 8 threads/cores. I can only think of 2 games that use more than 4 threads, BF3 and Crysis 2. A 1090/1100T may increase those 20FPS lows on the Athlon II by 50-75% heavily overclocked. The L3 cache helps out and the performance per core is a bit better than the Athlon II....
Yep. Derp hit it on the head. It's spreading the 2 threads across all cores, unfortunately. If you are dipping into the 20's and each core continues to run at or close to 50% and the GPU's are far below 100%, that's a stone cold bottleneck.This is an instance where you need better IPC. A 2500/2600K is going to close to double your IPC from the Athlon II stock vs. stock. And then you overclock the 2500/2600K and you've got even more over the Athlon II.
New Posts  All Forums: