Overclock.net banner
361 - 380 of 407 Posts

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #361 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post

I don't understand this. I'm functioning @ 10% power right now...
I believe you.

The problem was me not WANTING to believe you because I had just bought and gone through my 30 days w/ the i5. Also, I don't think I quite understand what you were doing as I was after more frames, MORE FRAMES!

Again, sorry man. I'm trying to work on being a better OCNer.
biggrin.gif
I honestly don't think an i5 would give you less frames vs an i7 - from my tests there was no difference.
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #363 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post

I noticed that I had to close battle screen or I would lose FPS frequently. HT wouldn't help?
As far as I can tell - nope.
Just reduces load. No one here has confirmed that there has been ANY FPS drop with HT OFF on their HT-able CPUs
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,772 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

I wouldn't lie - no idea why I would ever lie to anyone about anything.
Currently SLI on 680s and I must say - I'm hitting 100+ FPS
I'll bench next time.

Smooth I must say.

FUN FACT though:
When I let Afterburner "synchronise setting for GPU" - I noticed stuttering with my SLI setup in win7.
I removed that setting, then manually downclocked my 2nd GPU to be the same as the first GPU and ever since it has been perfect.

Again, would like to try on win8...but it doesn't boot the game - don't know what I have to do to make it run - did a repair install, checked for updates, left it on the browser to open the game for over 15mins....gave up after that - couldn't be bothered.

Maybe after some time I'll try win8 again and see if the crap game runs on it.

So I'll produce some BF4 1440p SLI 680 Win7 HT ON results.
Yea man i'm sure it runs better now, that was beta ages ago and on the first nvidia drivers
biggrin.gif
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #365 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

Yea man i'm sure it runs better now, that was beta ages ago and on the first nvidia drivers
biggrin.gif
well still a lot of people reported "I'm on SLI and the game runs a lot better on win8" - that was well after the game was released.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,772 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post

I don't understand this. I'm functioning @ 10% power right now...
I believe you.

The problem was me not WANTING to believe you because I had just bought and gone through my 30 days w/ the i5. Also, I don't think I quite understand what you were doing as I was after more frames, MORE FRAMES!

Again, sorry man. I'm trying to work on being a better OCNer.
biggrin.gif
You can have 100fps, but have half of your frames take 1/60'th of a second - the result is the "smoothness" of only ~60fps with lots of jerks forward and weird stuttery motion. That's an extreme example, but 120fps on a 120hz screen is no good if a bunch of your frames are still displayed for as long as they would be at 50-100fps, which is an issue with some games and why a raw "fps" number, or average of the last like 50 or however many frames, is not good for telling a picture of performance or how smooth stuff is all of the time.

It's more and more of an issue the closer you get to perfection, the issues with motion clarity - a slow response time 60hz IPS screen from 2008 would have less obvious issues than a 1ms gtg rated tn at 120hz with a strobe backlight, even on the same experience, because the little bumps in the road stand out a lot more if there are not potholes everywhere, etc
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

Hey guys, I wouldn't mind doing more win8.1 benching...but BF4 refuses to launch on my win8.1 installation.
All the more hate I have towards win8, just keeps growing.
Thats too bad, I never had any issues under 8 and now with 8.1 its just as good, no start up issues or crashes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
175 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

I honestly don't think an i5 would give you less frames vs an i7 - from my tests there was no difference.
Same here, if I disable HT on my 2700K the performance as far as I can tell is the same.
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #369 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niberius View Post

Thats too bad, I never had any issues under 8 and now with 8.1 its just as good, no start up issues or crashes.
Yeah neither did I! - I have no idea why all of the sudden BF4 isn't launching!?
I'll play on Win7 for a lil while and get some benches etc - then when I decide to try win8.1 - I might just migrate my win7 folder into the win8 one, so that it should eliminate any sort of problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niberius View Post

Same here, if I disable HT on my 2700K the performance as far as I can tell is the same.
Glad I'm not the only one! Thanks for testing and letting me know!
smile.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

You can have 100fps, but have half of your frames take 1/60'th of a second - the result is the "smoothness" of only ~60fps with lots of jerks forward and weird stuttery motion. That's an extreme example, but 120fps on a 120hz screen is no good if a bunch of your frames are still displayed for as long as they would be at 50-100fps, which is an issue with some games and why a raw "fps" number, or average of the last like 50 or however many frames, is not good for telling a picture of performance or how smooth stuff is all of the time.

It's more and more of an issue the closer you get to perfection, the issues with motion clarity - a slow response time 60hz IPS screen from 2008 would have less obvious issues than a 1ms gtg rated tn at 120hz with a strobe backlight, even on the same experience, because the little bumps in the road stand out a lot more if there are not potholes everywhere, etc
not going to lie my LG IPS234V is a beauty
smile.gif
!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,772 Posts
false
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

Yeah neither did I! - I have no idea why all of the sudden BF4 isn't launching!?
I'll play on Win7 for a lil while and get some benches etc - then when I decide to try win8.1 - I might just migrate my win7 folder into the win8 one, so that it should eliminate any sort of problem.
Glad I'm not the only one! Thanks for testing and letting me know!
smile.gif

not going to lie my LG IPS234V is a beauty
smile.gif
!
I love my vg248qe, wonky colors + viewing angles and all
biggrin.gif


waiting for that 1440p ~1-3ms gtg 120hz strobed ~22-27" that costs £100-300 instead of probably £800 (considering ROG swift releases at $700.. and vg248qe cost $255 when it was £275 here)
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #371 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

false
I love my vg248qe, wonky colors + viewing angles and all
biggrin.gif


waiting for that 1440p ~1-3ms gtg 120hz strobed ~22-27" that costs £100-300 instead of probably £800 (considering ROG swift releases at $700.. and vg248qe cost $255 when it was £275 here)
well the QNIX is absolutely brilliant:
1440p @ 110hz @ 8ms G2G and all at around £230.
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts

·
Just another nerd
Joined
·
5,926 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

Cool story. Does it run 1440p? NOPE!
It's probably the best 24" gaming monitor available for FPS games. Once it's calibrated, the IQ is great, and it's relatively cheap now. Also, it's Lightboost capable, and much "smoother" than any 1440P, like he said...
wink.gif
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #377 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niberius View Post

I wanna go 1440p, just might do it soon.
Definitely worth it, just make sure you got the GPU(s) to cover it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6600LE View Post

With an i7 2600k I get about 4-13% lower fps in both bf3 and bf4 using Windows 7. Is this how it's supposed to be?
5% is noted in the OP - so sounds about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheyster View Post

It's probably the best 24" gaming monitor available for FPS games. Once it's calibrated, the IQ is great, and it's relatively cheap now. Also, it's Lightboost capable, and much "smoother" than any 1440P, like he said...
wink.gif
The definition of "best" is subjective, when it comes to monitors.
It's a 1080P monitor, it's based on a TN panel (which in all honesty, if you go IPS/PLS, you won't want to come back) and is almost the same price as the QNIX.
It would surprise me if it WASN'T smoother. @1-2ms G2G, with a TN panel and 144hz - it bloody be smoother.
But smooth for me doesn't cut it. As I said, subjective opinion.
I prefer looking at a reasonably fluid image, with absolutely spot on colours and resolution that's just insanely better.

I put my Monitor (the QNIX) side by side to my LG - and the LG looked absolutely great (for colours) but the resolution just blows the LG out of the water. I even downclocked my QNIX, to 1080P to see hwo it would look like - and my god was it disgustingly "blurry".
So yeah, smoother it might be, but "shaved off sides" and "blurred lines" (pun intended) aren't my definition of a "good gaming monitor". Yet again, I'll stress it again, it's subjective.

I've always said this:
I want an IPS that does 1440p @ 120FPS.
Well, I pretty much got that, at an affordable £230 price, rather than a £500 price, I would have to shell out for a BenQ or Asus.
 

·
Just another nerd
Joined
·
5,926 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post

It's a 1080P monitor, it's based on a TN panel (which in all honesty, if you go IPS/PLS, you won't want to come back)
Been there, done that, came back.
wink.gif


You're right that it is subjective. A lot of pro FPS gamers like the 24 inch size because they don't have to move their head when playing; they can just stare straight ahead and see everything. I like my 27", but I do set it farther back on the desk than most people would. Anyone who is really competitive in FPS games will appreciate the 1ms response and 144 Hz refresh rate over the 1440P capability. Also, most IPS monitors have massive input lag (relatively speaking of course) when compared to the 144 Hz TN monitors. Lots of data is available over at TFTCentral to support this.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
175 Posts
My current 23" 1080P is a dell IPS screen and its my first IPS panel ever. I only purchased it because it got it on sale for a price I could not turn down $130.00 and I know understand what all the fuss is about concerning accurate colors. Also Im very happy to see that I have zero ghosting or input lag with this one. I guess I will probably just keep it.
 

·
TotallydubbedHD on YT
Joined
·
11,564 Posts
Discussion Starter · #380 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheyster View Post

Been there, done that, came back.
wink.gif


You're right that it is subjective. A lot of pro FPS gamers like the 24 inch size because they don't have to move their head when playing; they can just stare straight ahead and see everything. I like my 27", but I do set it farther back on the desk than most people would. Anyone who is really competitive in FPS games will appreciate the 1ms response and 144 Hz refresh rate over the 1440P capability. Also, most IPS monitors have massive input lag (relatively speaking of course) when compared to the 144 Hz TN monitors. Lots of data is available over at TFTCentral to support this.
yup quite a few have input lag - but the QNIX, and even my LG had barely any input lag
thumb.gif

As for the size, again, completely subjective - I've been playing a little better (due to me being able to see "more"). It also helps my eyes, as I'm not as glued as I used to be with my 22" LG.
On top of that, It's a PC not a gaming console.
In other words, I don't ONLY game on my PC - I watch things, editing things, talk about things (like I'm doing right now) - so the fact that the QNIX is capable of both, completely takes away the competition for me.The ONLY other thing I would want, would be GSync. That would be cool.
144hz, doesn't attract me in the slightest. GPUs won't do it. That, of course is if I don't play at 1440p or 1080p. If I drop to 720p, then sure, I'll be able to hit that without a problem, consistently.
But then, why didn't you buy a 720P display, and a 1080P one? Anyway - some gamers are dead serious about gaming and take it super seriously. Sure those guys, which I like to call "pro gamers" would need the fastest input, least latency at a reasonable resolution: 1080P and 720P.
They wouldn't care about 120hz vs 144hz, nor would they care about the "colours" of the panel, nor even if it's LED or plasma (lol). Heck they would choose a CRT if they could accept the resolution.

Point is, most people aren't these types of gamers. I don't know anyone that's like that.
People that compete in BF4 tournaments aren't what I consider pro gamers either. Hate to say it, but most of them are just 1 kit, 1 weapon based people, that tend to "own" in normal games.

Take them out of their bubble and they get utterly destroyed. Then they blame it on them not "having enough experience with the gun".If you were a true gamer, you would pick up any weapon in any game and be able to do well with it.
There's a very very few people like that in the world. Or at least that have that mentality.
 
361 - 380 of 407 Posts
Top