Jump to content

WarWeeny

Members
  • Content count

    1,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by WarWeeny

  1. WarWeeny

    Refining my overclocked i5-2500k

    If you really are concerned about temps, just put it at 4GHz. This should be easily doable with lower voltages and you will not notice it in games.
  2. With 1440P he wouldn't notice, since the GPU is at the front line then. Even Ryzen 1600 can handle a 1080Ti fine, CPU bottlenecks are a thing of the past with hexacores being the standard.
  3. So i got myself a fancy laptop a while ago (June 2016) and it did what it need to do quite well. Currently i have the laptop on the charger and it is stuck on 93%, but the laptop says it is still charging. This has been going on for a few hours now, it will not go on green so to say (orange when charging, green when full) i looked at the battery report that windows made, but i am not becoming any wiser lol. i unplug the charger when watching movies or typing reports and the like, until windows prompts me to say to plug it in if it is at 10%. iI did this in hopes of decreasing a "lazy battery" pattern, but i guess it did not help me if i see the symptoms it has now. Hopefully someone here knows whats up. i just bluntly copied pasted the data in a notepad file, sorry for the jumpy text. battery report.zip
  4. WarWeeny

    laptop battery dying?

    The charger is warm, but not "hot" per-se. The battery itself is cool, does not feel warm, but that could be because of the casing, it has a shroud covering it.
  5. WarWeeny

    laptop battery dying?

    Alright, i figured the battery was defect, but i still have a concern. If i leave the charger in for its use for the rest of the time, does this have any dangers like overheating the battery (or overcharging so to say) since the laptop is in constant charging mode, or is it safe for as long as i use the laptop while it is in the charger and leave it out when i do not use it?
  6. WarWeeny

    laptop battery dying?

    Nobody? #SadLife Guess i need to send it back, i hoped some hidden guru's knew some nice tricks to get it back up again
  7. WarWeeny

    Odd behaviour HDD

    So every so often my HDD goes to 100% out of nowhere (usually when i watch a video) and stays there for a minute or 2 before backing down and resuming as usual. Afterwards i get an error saying "server execution failed" - but i am not connected to the internet most of the time (laptop, only go to library for internet stuff like emails and shit) and i do not get this error all the time (it comes and goes about once a month? if even that). Also, when i access a file (like playing a video) the HDD "clicks" before attempting to play it, but it does not do that after it has done that initially (so all the things i do after it, it does not "click") i just assuming this has to do with accessing the data on the disk, so i am not that worried about this, but i thought i'd give it a mention. I crystal-disk check the disk, everything seems healthy, but i am still a bit worried. Also did a disk check in windows itself. Do i have a setting enabled that does this or is this a problem in windows 10 itself (anniversary update installed). I backed up some important files, just in case the HDD is failing (although it only is about a year old). So am i doing something wrong here, are my settings not right, or is my HDD failing on me already? I have added a crystaldisk info screenshot if anything peculiar can be found there. I thought i'd ask here for some answers.
  8. WarWeeny

    Odd behaviour HDD

    Regarding the clicking sound, it only clicks once, after that, i would not hear it unless i reboot the system. Pagefile options did not give me any immediate answers, so i guess it could be something else (i already disabled power savings, in case people wondered, so it does not turn of every x minutes) The "server execution failed" error only comes after the 100% "bug" is going away, otherwise, it never shows up.
  9. WarWeeny

    Unigine Announces New GPU Benchmark

    Damn, ray tracing is finally going to be a thing for benchmarks, it should be interesting to see where this is going. Hopefully we are not too far off when games are using the technology, this could improve image quality and fidelity by quite a margin.
  10. WarWeeny

    4690k to ryzen ?

    If the board is compatible, you could go for the i7 4xxx series instead of going ryzen (seeing you need to upgrade quite a bit before you go to a new platform) i7 is a good improvement these days, especially when it comes to gaming performance (see digital foundry's video's (youtube) for this, they have a good comparison video there) Otherwise, if you are not lacking any performance now, just keep what you have, it is still a good system and should carry you well into 2018 before showing any real bottlenecks.
  11. <- is a computer engineer. <--- is not a computer engineer ;P figured it would be something like that though. On a different note, digital foundry did an extensive review of the chip (1800x) and did some interesting benchmarks with certain settings, in case people are still hungry for some extra information that has not been processed in this review.
  12. A 65W chip running at 4 GHz and 1.4 volts will generally run the same as a 95W chip at 4 GHz and 1.4 volts. They're all the same silicon, and they won't vary by much. The only reason the 1700 is a "65 watt" chip is because it's clocked lower at lower voltages. Once you change that, it's going to use a LOT more power. Hmm sounds plausible/sensible
  13. Hmm, based on the articles posted, a 60 degrees is a lot more tolerable than 80+. Hopefully we get a decent and accurate temperature measurement tool this time around, bulldozer was all over the place and ususally ended up "not supported" in most temperature reading tools i have used (real temp didn't support it, and core-temp gave weird readings for example)
  14. Just wait for the "gen 2" chips (first i7 920 vs the glorious 2600K anyone?) an di am pretty sure the performance is going to be a lot better. Or so i hope.
  15. Overclocking makes it...not a 65W chip. Well, considering the extra load, compared to the 95W chip the temps aren't that much different, which is strange to me. I am not an engineer, so I am probably wrong here, but ehh, if you have a 65W chip and a 95W chip, when both are overclocked, one would say the 65W chip would still run cooler than the 95W chip, but when i see the benchmarks online that include temps, the difference is not that much.
  16. Since Google does not help me finding my answers, I come here for some trustworthy advise. I have a laptop at the moment (G751JY) with a pretty good 75Hz Gsync monitor on it. Now, I tried overclocking it, and came out at a solid 100Hz. Obviously my question that follows is, is it "safe" to leave it at these numbers? Tried a few tests and it stays stable for the time that i tested it (used a webpage as well (http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates) and it stays "Valid" for all the time I have it open. Main concern is, does the lifespan of the monitor degrade if i use it at 100Hz, and if so, any estimates of how much? I know these are pretty much guess work questions, but if someone has experience in overclocking monitors and lifespan, I would gladly read it.
  17. Hmm, interesting, what about temperatures? Does making it operate at higher refresh-rates increase temperatures in any way?
  18. Wow, that is quite hot to be honest, especially for a 65W chip. i expected somewhere around 70~ ish, probably because of the first release that the chips are not yet fully matured. There is hope for the future of AMD, i am pretty happy with the results already and can't wait for next years "gen 2" of Ryzen.
  19. Pretty content with the performance, finally a reason to be excited again for AMD processors. @Frank, could you try / test something? - if not too much trouble of course. AMD 1700 @4.0GHz vs i7 7700K @ 4.0GHz. Pretty curious what the performance is like-for-like when clocked equally. Also, what were the temperatures when overclocked to 4GHz? (The 1700 one, but wouldn't mind knowing what the other 2 were giving as well). I missed that in the review (or maybe overlooked it?)
  20. WarWeeny

    ASUS, MSI, EVGA GTX 950 Reviewed

    Where do you see me saying that you are "falsifying" results? Nowhere, don't go insinuating yourself please, before making a fit and soft-threat me. You completely missed the point i was making and you make your own assumptions, don't do that. Instead, just ask for more clarification, more friendly that way too. I'l go in more detail, since you missed my point entirely in the previous post. The point i was making here is that the benchmarks are not really realistic (keyword here since you apparently missed that in my previous comment) in terms of the load the GPU is given, giving a higher result in the end and an unrealistic view of the cards performance. Your description of the bench you do for Crysis 3 proves that as well, the indoor sequence and the small outdoor portion has nowhere near the same load as let's say the starting point of chapter two where you see the grasslands and let the mines explode for example. When seeing the "60FPS" on the benchmarks, people assume they can attain those frames on those settings at all times when playing with that card, and are disappointed when they reach chapter two where the frames drop well below 40 at times. and will never reach that 60FPS again. To prevent the above scenario, and give a more realistic view on things, it is smart to give the viewer an idea on what you did to achieve said frames/results. If you would have added that part about how you got those Crysis 3 frames, everyone would understand how you got those frames and how you do your benchmarks for that game, and people can recreate that for themselves to compare. Nothing more, nothing less, i never meant any "harm" or "insult" to you as a reviewer, i just wanted to say that it may be a good idea to mention what you did for a certain game to get those results, so the readers won't be fooled by the frames with their own assumptions. Hopefully my point is coming across now... You're missing the entire purpose of the game benchmarks. They are to show RELATIVE performance between the cards tested. Nobody should compare game tests between sites unless the benchmarks are canned in the game...and even then, test setups vary wildly. If you can't grok that, please just stop complaining. Useful post, right here....oh wait.
  21. WarWeeny

    Water cooled rig temps?

    i7 chips tend to get hot though.
  22. WarWeeny

    Water cooled rig temps?

    73C is pretty safe as a temp. Did you do any overclocking?
  23. WarWeeny

    ASUS, MSI, EVGA GTX 950 Reviewed

    Where do you see me saying that you are "falsifying" results? Nowhere, don't go insinuating yourself please, before making a fit and soft-threat me. You completely missed the point i was making and you make your own assumptions, don't do that. Instead, just ask for more clarification, more friendly that way too. I'l go in more detail, since you missed my point entirely in the previous post. The point i was making here is that the benchmarks are not really realistic (keyword here since you apparently missed that in my previous comment) in terms of the load the GPU is given, giving a higher result in the end and an unrealistic view of the cards performance. Your description of the bench you do for Crysis 3 proves that as well, the indoor sequence and the small outdoor portion has nowhere near the same load as let's say the starting point of chapter two where you see the grasslands and let the mines explode for example. When seeing the "60FPS" on the benchmarks, people assume they can attain those frames on those settings at all times when playing with that card, and are disappointed when they reach chapter two where the frames drop well below 40 at times. and will never reach that 60FPS again. To prevent the above scenario, and give a more realistic view on things, it is smart to give the viewer an idea on what you did to achieve said frames/results. If you would have added that part about how you got those Crysis 3 frames, everyone would understand how you got those frames and how you do your benchmarks for that game, and people can recreate that for themselves to compare. Nothing more, nothing less, i never meant any "harm" or "insult" to you as a reviewer, i just wanted to say that it may be a good idea to mention what you did for a certain game to get those results, so the readers won't be fooled by the frames with their own assumptions. Hopefully my point is coming across now...
  24. WarWeeny

    Apocalyptic Theme Park

    I'd go there lol. Looks pretty cool tbh xD
  25. WarWeeny

    ASUS, MSI, EVGA GTX 950 Reviewed

    No, i said that to have good benchmark results, you can only rely on synthetic benchmarks since testing with games is just not realistic as each review plays it at a different location (if the game doesn't have an ingame bench of its own), although no one really tells you exactly where the test has started and stopped, so people still do not know where the actual testing has been done. To give an example, Frank said that for crysis 3, he played a part of the opening sequence and just walked around a bit and shot a bullet or two (if even that). That is how he tested the game, and this should be included in the review if a game doesn't have an ingame benchmark of its own..in my opinion of course, nobody is forced to do this, but it does give the reader an idea where the test took place and can recreate the sequence so he/she can compare how their current card performs compared to the reviewed card. It is of course a LOT easier to test it with a game that has a benchmark integrated like sleeping dogs for example. Just run the test, get the results and compare them. With tests like Crysis 3, that has no benchmark tool it is hard to compare, especially in areas that aren't that demanding like the opening area. What i was trying to achieve was that reviewers should include a small explanation on how and where the reviewer did his testing with a game that has no benchmark tool, and on what basis he concludes what the results are (minimum frames? average?, max?). I think this would give a lot clarity to the readers and get a better idea on how the card performs. As it stands now, Crysis 3 can be ran at 60FPS on the 950 (with no indication where the bench has been done and how he did it), but in chapter 2, the gtx 970 struggles to get even 50fps, and that card is a lot stronger than that gtx950. So based on this review, that 950 should outperform the gtx 970 with ease. Only at the 3Dmark/Unigine benchmark can you really see how much weaker/stronger a card is because those tests are all the same if you use the same settings. See where i am getting at here?
×