Wayne (Discord ID: 135135046163103744), page 1
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
1,162 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/5 | Next
Florida is apparently two different states
I'm gonna make my way up with higher activity as of lately
If you have a typical ATX or e-ATX mobo, the top two pcie x16 slots should be at least 1 more slot apart than the bottom 2 on a 3-4 x16 lane mobo. Therefore having an acx style cooler is fine.
I have a GTX 1070 Sea Hawk X watercooled aio which stays incredibly cool under full load artificially, but it isn't necessary to have to keep the card that cold, if you max out at under 70C under full load for like 5 mins which is pretty unrealistic scenario, then you're way ahead good temps. Even resting just under 80C at that kind of load is acceptable. Over 80 and you're pushing it, but it still doesn't have much of an effect on the card. My GTX 760's (SLI) with reference blower coolers would max at about 84C under load brand new, and they had no issues the whole time, and still overclock well relative to better cooked versions of the same card. So there is honestly nothing to worry about. Also when it comes to GPU boost and overclocking the 1070, for a typical and stable OC on a well-cooled reference PCB, use about +100 core and no more than +250mem (100-200 is more practical since mem isn't as detrimental for gaming as core). Don't try and squeeze performance because the Pascal GPU lineup isn't really meant for it.
Also it isn't worth SLI for 2x 1070's unless you're upgrading from the first. But either way the best thing to do is get the single fastest card since Nvidia no longer pays for games to have SLI support, and the optimization for it is ass (especially from experience)...
If you haven't bought any cards yet, get the 1080Ti or wait for the Volta cards.
I know what I'm talking about, I have experience on pretty much any end.
Here's the thing. Playing max on 4K at a higher refresh rate than 60fps is something not worth striving for until after Volta imo. The best thing you can do is run a 1440p (2K) monitor with 120hz+ and Gsync. My monitor (Acer XB271HU) is 2K 165Hz IPS Gsync @27" and once you go to the higher refreshrate (especially with Gsync, it's pretty detrimental), you'll never want to go back and 4K wouldnt likely be as enjoyable. Also considering you can run 2K at higher than 60fps average very comfortably with one 1070 alone, so with a 1080Ti or newer Volta card it'll be a while before you need an upgrade. That's the best route imo and from other people I've discussed this with. Also an ACX 2.0/3.0 cooler card nowadays won't likely run the fan at more than 60% under high loads and will still keep the card under 75C no biggie. As long as you have intake fans in the front and outs on the top/back (or cooler on back), then you should get most of that excess heat trapped in the case out. 1070 SLI again, is less practical than the 1080Ti standalone and will also cost more for less performance on most games and lack of SLI optimization on many. If the game isn't optimized for SLI, you can only use 1 card.
But 4K 60fps is much less enjoyable than 2K 120fps (especially with Gsync). At least that's what a couple forum polls and other people I've talked to said. From personal experience it's true. Even with Gsync, 60fps is a noticeable drop especially for competitive games. For example, Dark Souls 3 has an engine limit of 60fps. I enjoy the gameplay, but that jump from 60fps to 120+ is important for lots of movement, especially when you're used to it. And with Gsync making the frametimes even, with no stutter or tearing whatsoever, in movement, even not that drastic, I could easily see choppy displaying because of the frame rate. It's especially important for precision in games like that, and it really helps you get more information to your brain when you have all of those filler frames. Makes competitive, action and fast paced gaming much better. So although for visuals 4K is a little bit better, the framerate versatility and performance benefit of 2K is truly "optimal", especially if you have good money.
And Rainbow 6 isn't very well optimized tbh, little bad for comparison. Better to use something like Battlefield, Doom, a newer COD game, crisis 3 (still relevant), PUBG, GTA V, Metro: Last Light, Tomb Raider, and some others I'm not gonna waste time naming.
4K is really only practical for movies and laid-back games. If you're the typical gamer, the faster 2K is the best experience. Sorry if I'm getting repetitive.
When the 2080Ti comes out, it should (if at least a 35% performance advantage over the 1080Ti which it almost certainly will be) be more than sufficient for max 4k gaming on current games at 60fps, but even then, 2K 120hz+ with Gsync is still the best way to go for gaming. Games will get more demanding, but also better optimized with new engines and API's. Therefore when games get more demanding and optimized, you can still have to option to play at a sweet spot based on your needs. That's why I still favor 2K 120hz+ Gsync panels for versatility and long term enjoyment.
I'd be willing to say relative to the 1080Ti, the 2080Ti would be in many cases even overpowered for my 165hz Gsync 1440p panel.
Uhm, I think I'd know what my limitations are since I have metro last light, gta v, battlefield 4 and tomb raider. If I downscaled to 1080p and ran those games on max setting (with optimal AA for best picture without getting excessive), I run comfortably over 100FPS consistently... that's just with a GTX 1070 as well, the 1080Ti is over 60% the performance. There's no excuse to say that 1080p nowadays isn't demanding relative to the higher end cards we have. Also, with the 78% resolution jump with 2K over 1080p, the performance loss is not linear, so you don't usually lose more than 40% performance, except AA has a slightly more drastic performance drop (although you don't need more than 4x msaa or 2xSSAA on good 2K monitors anyways). So the 1080Ti is more sufficient for 2K than the 1070 is for 1080p, and that is more than "sufficient" for high refresh rate 1440p. So given the likely 40%+ performance jump with the 2080Ti over the 1080Ti (or likely more, as much as 60% based on history and architectural expectation), 2K @165Hz and Gsync should run without a hitch on the upcoming flagship. Yes a single GPU, and from experience SLI has way too many downsides. Lots of lack of optimization meaning it can't be used in many games, and not good optimization in most games that actually support it. Cost to performance with optimization versus the flagship card is also not worth it, the 2x1070's in SLI on an optimized game will run barely better (if any better) than 1x 1080Ti, this is from experience and benchmarks that you yourself can look up.
Also the 600 series GTX graphics cards had predominantly 720p users, I'm talking about arguments based on numbers and speculation, not assumptions and dreams.
There is no latency difference with 2K, latency (such as GTG) are based on the display type, such as IPS, VA or TN
This proves you don't know what you're talking about
And my Gsync 165Hz monitor has the same latency for frametimes as a 165Hz Gsync 1080p monitor at the same framerate.
GTG latency is almost completely irrelevant if under 5ms.
I'll bite, gonna find a video or two with same species different res monitors
But from experience, there is such a low latency with my monitor, sub 50ms
The 99th percentile is always over 60fps
The drop from 1080 to 1440 is so minimal
I think it's acceptable to run games as low as 60fps, but you pretty much require more than 75FPS (with Gsync) for any higher movement action/competitive games
As long as my 99th percentile isn't under 50fps with Gsync, and my average is over 90 I'm happy.
With Gsync the frametimes are even, and screen tearing is inexistent. Having higher fps than refresh rate causes tearing. Vsync and even FastSync cause noticeable latency and fastsync has stuttering issues. Gsync makes the most out of having a higher frame rate than refresh rate as well as lower. So the 99th percentile is irrelevant.
There is no way you don't get tearing just because it's a good monitor
Better monitor helps no doubt, but it isn't eliminated.
I can turn Gsync off and I have noticeable tearing in movement scenes
I think that your lack of Gsync with the higher refresh rate has desensitized you from seeing tearing
If you went to Gsync and back you'd notice it
It's more subtle at a higher refresh rate, but with higher resolution it's fuckin everywhere
What are the specs of the other monitor
Thanks, that may help him understand he doesn't have a magic monitor
One is supposedly a 144hz 2K god monitor without Gsync and the other is supposedly 60hz 1080
I'll call the resolution I use whatever I goddamn want lawl
I seriously can't wait for 2080Ti though
Gonna rock my monitor with that thing asap
I won't do multiple GPU's unless dx12 multiGPU support actually becomes a thing rather than a continuous lost dream.
Otherwise it'll be next year in January
Your rumors are just sourced from gay ppl
Mine are sourced from marketing history
I mean, if I'm being honest with myself unlike you, yes, 100fps is fine.
Some people would argue that 60 is fine lmao
You don't really get that much more out of 165 than 100 with Gsync
I left the Gsync sticker on to impress the dickladies
Something that you don't even understand
do you even know how Gsync works and what frametimes are relative to framerate?
I have a 1070, I can run plenty of things over 100 lol
I've actually done testing. 100fps with Gsync is smoother than 165 without it
You're insulting me, but you don't even know what Gsync is
You're literally saying irrelevant insults that have nothing to do with reality
Depends on the game, and adjust slightly lower AA or lowering shadows doesn't bother me because I'm not a brainlet
Brb, taking a shower rather than wasting my time with you.
I run on high not very high and use no postfx since they do nothing. Still have Tess and 4x msaa and run consistently over 80fps, and GTA doesn't need to be at much higher than 60 to look very good and feel very good
You're a sad individual, answer the question
I feel retarded for talking to you since your arguments are stupid
And I wouldn't SLI, I would rather get a 1080Ti
But they are overpriced now, and I'm waiting for 2080Ti instead
I'm comfortable with my current performance until then.
1080Ti is overpriced because of "mining"
There's speculation that they might use firmware to prevent new cars from mining
Maybe temporarily to get the cards into consumer hands
Even if I had a 2080Ti, Gsync is a whole different argument
Once you go to it, in games like CS, you truly can't live without it
And guess what, I get way over my refresh rate on CS
I bought my monitor after I already had the card
and I didn't have the money to buy a new card and at this rate, this late and nearing new card releases, I'm just waiting and enjoying what I have
But the 1070 is too expensive right now
They will definitely outperform the 2x cards
That's why I'm waiting rather than spending money on another of the same card
I've done SLI before rather than wait and I won't make that financial mistake again l
And I have everything else in my rig pretty set so I don't have a need for a new PC.
The 980Ti is in some cases better than the 1070
But then you're limited to 6gb of vram
And much more power draw, like WAY more
And the performance is only a little better, but some games with no SLI support or trashy optimization it's just back to not being worth it.
If it just comes out and you want more, then SLI the best card
I mean, I don't doubt the 980Ti's in SLI on a well optimized SLI supporting game won't outperform a 1080Ti, because they likely will, but the inconveniences of SLI outweigh the benefit unless you already have a flash shop card and "need" more performance...
Woag it takes more than 50 points to progress a level now
yo @Bearchoyboi don't SLI, get best single card for 2k 144Hz monitor
and get a 2k 144hz/165hz IPS GSYNC monitor'
if it hurts your head and you're ok with gsync off, monitors like mine "Acer XB271HU" you can use ULMB
ultra low motion blur, may help with seeing things while moving and maybe making you less sick
from what I hear, micro center is awesome. I don't have any in my area though.
I do newegg, Amazon and occasionally best buy
don't listen to dont ping me on the gsync issue, he doesn;t even know what it is
it will change your gaming experience a lot
best buy has price match and sometimes carry things like samsung evo and pro ssd's in store so you can get them right away
it's not just fluidity, with GSYNC you have even frametimes which means the amount of time between each frame being displayed isn't sporadic. It also 100% eliminates screen tearing which exists with every monitor. Sometimes you won't notice you have it simply because your eye isn't used to not having it
it also makes lower framerates MUCH more bearable
so with my monitor, unless you're shipped/buy a defective one will get incredibly good color accuracy for anything without quantum dot/oled, 165hz, ULMB, GSYNC and an IPS display
I have a GTX 1070, am waiting for GTX 2080Ti before next upgrade
I don't intend on wasting money unless I know my next purchase will hold me off for a good while
also SLI has downsides like many games have no support for it so only one of the cards will do any rendering, and the games that ARE optimized for it are often poorly so
The cost of 2x1070's versus 1080Ti and the pros and cons of both, 1080Ti, or volta card is best option
the only thing I recommend watercooling for is the CPU, that's basically a requirement
matter of fact, if you need PC hardware help, you can message me personally if you want a relatively quick response and are looking for somebody with experience and knowledge
most people use AIO watercooling for the CPU, where you mount a radiator for the CPU only with flexible tubing
there is no performance advantage with custom watercooling, the BTU transfer of the radiators are the same, and the oumo on AIO's is slightly overrated on BTU for quality assurance
and there is practically no maintenance for AIO watercooling
If you aren't going to constantly OC your CPU relatively far with noticeably higher than stock voltages, then you'll probably do good with a 120mm/140mm radiator those can be as cheap as $60 and as much as $90. If you want more surface space to keep the CPU unnecessarily cooler or want to try for more drastic OC which requires much higher jumps in voltage per small increase in frequency for maintaining stability, then you're going to want a minimum of a 240mm radiator, which is 240x120mm meaning it takes 2x120mm fans if your case has a place to support that. Higher voltage (especially beyond a certain point depending on individual model and pin size) is going to reduce the longevity of the CPU, even if you keep it cooler, and if going on the very edge of safe voltages and max stable frequency at those voltages, you can degrade the CPU enough within months of use depending on how much your computer is on every day to where you need to step down the frequency at that same voltage to maintain stability. This is why I don't recommend going extreme, but going between boost and extreme is relatively the most practical point if you're gonna cool with a higher BTU rad. 280mm rads are 280x140 if your case can support that on the top (preferably). What is your CPU and what are your intentions?
what fan expandabilitydo you have in the top of your case?
btw, the i7 7700k is very efficient and can overclock to a pretty decent clock (for most) without excessive voltage, so if you tweak your CPU to run the highest stable frequency at 1.3-1.35V you'll get the most out of your CPU long-term
1.35 over 1.3 will have a slightly higher degradation rate, but the benefit may be as much as .2ghz more stable which is a lot in long-term
you have to overclock through BIOS, I can walk you throught hat after you already ahv ethe new cooler
I don't recommend OS OC for cpu as much
also I found out the front of your case will accept a 360mm aio
so I recommend doing a intake fan in the bottom front, with the top 2 as out with a 240mm aio, and the bottom case fan if there is a slot for one as an out with the fan on the back as intake, so you can minimize dust and sustain decent pressure
@SchloppyDoggo we're talking about CPU lol
he could do a 212evo, but for his use it isn't practical
note that replacing CPU cooler requires thermal paste
very viscous, long lasting and best thermal transfer compound on the market
especially if you intend on frequently/constantly running high temps/high load
arctic silver 5 is cheap, I recommend it for any rig
it's almost just as cheap as any other paste
1,162 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/5 | Next