Bargain Alerts/Adverts Discussion Thread

A.Gorilla

A.Gorilla wrote: »

An MSI 1070 for 336 pound https://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-GeForce-GTX-1070-ARMOR/dp/B01GVHNW3W/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491321353&sr=8-2&keywords=gtx+1070+msi
I badly need a new card to upgrade my 670.....I wonder is this worth it?

Got my card today. OMG what a difference. Tis a beast of a card. Well worth the money

Hal1

Yeah, I had a HD5670 for 3 years, then got a msi 1070 gaming. It was like day and night in comparison. I just need a decent gsync 144mhz screen now .

MiskyBoyy

A.Gorilla wrote: »

Got my card today. OMG what a difference. Tis a beast of a card. Well worth the money

Welcome to the 21st century Bilco

A.Gorilla

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

Welcome to the 21st century Bilco

Thanks buddy...playing PUBG if you fancy it!

Inviere

Any paleontologists here?

I threw this up for €80, not really knowing if it was worth that, or indeed less. No bites on it though, is it priced too high? - http://www.adverts.ie/desktops/htpc-home-theater-pc/12692216

TerrorFirmer

I would say 80 is a good price for it, considering the decent PSU, blu-ray drive, graphics card alone would be almost worth that in parts in particular.

Inviere

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I would say 80 is a good price for it, considering the decent PSU, blu-ray drive, graphics card alone would be almost worth that in parts in particular.

I use the term "graphics card" loosely, it's good for HDMI out, x264, x265 etc...wouldn't be playing Doom on it though Otherwise priced ok yeah? Cheers...will just wait it out so

Lu Tze

The last bu-ray drive sold on adverts went for €25, so if you think you might get €55 for the rest you could stick up a couple of adverts for them seperately.

Inviere

Lu Tze wrote: »

The last bu-ray drive sold on adverts went for €25, so if you think you might get €55 for the rest you could stick up a couple of adverts for them seperately.

True, the hassle of haggling for pennies though puts me off. I figured the "you just need to add hdds and you've a fully working pc" approach was less hassle

Shougeki

Inviere wrote: »

True, the hassle of haggling for pennies though puts me off. I figured the "you just need to add hdds and you've a fully working pc" approach was less hassle

Gonna be honest, I just use a RaspberryPi running XBMC as my media center [and a NAS with 10TB of ZFS storage :P]

Inviere

Shougeki wrote: »

Gonna be honest, I just use a RaspberryPi running XBMC as my media center [and a NAS with 10TB of ZFS storage :P]

Indeed, when I put this together the only raspberry Pi around was the type you could eat

evolutionqy7

farna_boy wrote: »

I have never used ibood before, but they have an LG 34†Full HD Ultrawide Curved IPS Monitor for €499 up today.

Key specs:
34"
144Hz
2560 x 1080
FreeSync

It's not a massive reduction compared to amazon or overclockers but it does save about €60 and the reviews seem good enough for it too.

Anyone else own these? I got a 1440p Ultrawide and struggling to run games on my GTX980.

You go down to 1080p Ultrawide and you get better frame rates, but the pixels on the screen must be pretty nasty to look at.

FAILSAFE 00

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Anyone else own these? I got a 1440p Ultrawide and struggling to run games on my GTX980.

You go down to 1080p Ultrawide and you get better frame rates, but the pixels on the screen must be pretty nasty to look at.

What frame rates are you getting at 1440p? What graphics settings are you using (Ultra, high, etc). Any games in particular?

evolutionqy7

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

What frame rates are you getting at 1440p? What graphics settings are you using (Ultra, high, etc). Any games in particular?

Well one in Particular is Fallout 4.
Lacking 21:9 support is a separate issue and everything is stretched if you want to play full screen.
Have to play at lowest possible settings at 1440p to get a steady 60fps.

Had a 3 monitor setup before and don't think the performance impact 1080p x3 was as high as the 3440x1440.

Some games run great. Some don't.
Either way, general rule of thumb on a 980 I am loosing eye candy effects in a trade for higher res.
Think I prefered 1080p with higher settings for gaming

The only GPU's able to drive that resolution on high settings seems to be 1080/1080ti, which is a shame, considering the one I have is a FreeSync and there's no AMD card out there that can drive that many pixels

Though higher res and extra screen real estate is soooo much better for photo editing and general productivity.

Lukker-

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Well one in Particular is Fallout 4.
Lacking 21:9 support is a separate issue and everything is stretched if you want to play full screen.
Have to play at lowest possible settings at 1440p to get a steady 60fps.

Had a 3 monitor setup before and don't think the performance impact 1080p x3 was as high as the 3440x1440.

Some games run great. Some don't.
Either way, general rule of thumb on a 980 I am loosing eye candy effects in a trade for higher res.
Think I prefered 1080p with higher settings for gaming

The only GPU's able to drive that resolution on high settings seems to be 1080/1080ti, which is a shame, considering the one I have is a FreeSync and there's no AMD card out there that can drive that many pixels

Though higher res and extra screen real estate is soooo much better for photo editing and general productivity.

Fallout is pretty CPU bound afaik, what CPU do ya have?

I'm in the same boat FreeSync wise, want to upgrade but can't really yet, I still have an R9 290, patiently waiting for Vega....

TerrorFirmer

I would say you're possibly CPU bottlenecked rather than GPU. No way a 980 can only run FO4 at 1440p low settings. Even though you're not really at 1440p, that's sort of like '3k'.

Overclocked Haswell i5 is sort of minimum for a guaranteed 60fps minimum framerate. If you're any AMD CPU, that would be the definite cause as they're very weak in that game.

That LG seems somewhat unappealing to me - 2560x1080 on a 34" screen is far from ideal.

Lukker-

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I would say you're possibly CPU bottlenecked rather than GPU. No way a 980 can only run FO4 at 1440p low settings. Even though you're not really at 1440p, that's sort of like '3k'.

Overclocked Haswell i5 is sort of minimum for a guaranteed 60fps minimum framerate. If you're any AMD CPU, that would be the definite cause as they're very weak in that game.

That LG seems somewhat unappealing to me - 2560x1080 on a 34" screen is far from ideal.

I'd agree, you'd want to be at least 5-6 feet away to not notice the pixels. That said it could be a good budget option for someone who wants a 30"+ ultrawide.

wotzgoingon

I know Rx Vega is a lot better but I have a 1440P monitor with a R9 Fury X and it runs games brilliantly. Runs Doom and Battleborn at 144Hz also the latest Hitman at above 120Hz. GTA V is my most demanding game I own but it runs with Maz setting above 60 Hz and way roughly 80Hz average.

Lukker-

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I know Rx Vega is a lot better but I have a 1440P monitor with a R9 Fury X and it runs games brilliantly. Runs Doom and Battleborn at 144Hz also the latest Hitman at above 120Hz. GTA V is my most demanding game I own but it runs with Maz setting above 60 Hz and way roughly 80Hz average.

FuryX and the Fury are great cards, but at higher resolutions it'd worry me going forward limited to just 4GB.

evolutionqy7

Lukker- wrote: »

Fallout is pretty CPU bound afaik, what CPU do ya have?

I'm in the same boat FreeSync wise, want to upgrade but can't really yet, I still have an R9 290, patiently waiting for Vega....

Unfortunately I doubt its CPU bottleneck
Only programme I ever see making my CPU reach 100% utilisation is Adobe Lightroom.

I would be half tempted to get a 1080TI and call it a day.
I have a 4K TV and the ultrawide monitor, so for the foreseeable number of years that would drive it no problem.

But waiting to see what VEGA has to offer.

Edit: just did a quick check. Set all FO4 settings to Ultra. Ran it and was getting 36FPS or so. Set it to low and was getting the same frame rates at 2560x1440 (game doesn't support 3440x1440, just stretches everything)

BloodBath

FO4 is just a terribly optimised game using a ****ty old terribly optimised engine.

I'd be overclocking that cpu higher than 4.0Ghz though.

evolutionqy7

BloodBath wrote: »

FO4 is just a terribly optimised game using a ****ty old terribly optimised engine.

I'd be overclocking that cpu higher than 4.0Ghz though.

Ah there's no need for me.
I used to have it whirling at 4.4Ghz but I don't need it really.
Only time it comes into 100% territory is when rendering images and its not terribly slow for me to look for that extra boost.

Lukker-

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Ah there's no need for me.
I used to have it whirling at 4.4Ghz but I don't need it really.
Only time it comes into 100% territory is when rendering images and its not terribly slow for me to look for that extra boost.

Any reason you don't OC? Stock cooler? It's just free performance you are not using, shouldn't even be breaking that much of a sweat if you have decent silicon.

The 10% extra core clock will make a big difference in single threaded games.

evolutionqy7

Lukker- wrote: »

Any reason you don't OC? Stock cooler? It's just free performance you are not using, shouldn't even be breaking that much of a sweat if you have decent silicon.

The 10% extra core clock will make a big difference in single threaded games.

I have a Hyper 212 Evo. I just don't see a need for it.
On most games it doesn't break a sweat,
Maybe further down the line if games/applications get more intensive, yes.

Atm I don't see a huge need for it.

K.O.Kiki

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Unfortunately I doubt its CPU bottleneck
Only programme I ever see making my CPU reach 100% utilisation is Adobe Lightroom.

I would be half tempted to get a 1080TI and call it a day.
I have a 4K TV and the ultrawide monitor, so for the foreseeable number of years that would drive it no problem.

But waiting to see what VEGA has to offer.

Edit: just did a quick check. Set all FO4 settings to Ultra. Ran it and was getting 36FPS or so. Set it to low and was getting the same frame rates at 2560x1440 (game doesn't support 3440x1440, just stretches everything)

That doesn't seem right.
GamersNexus did tests with i7-4790k & 980Ti, 1440p and were getting 83fps avg (62fps 1% low, 41fps 0.1% low)
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

The 980Ti is around 20-30% faster than the base 980, so you should still be seeing ~60fps average.

Are you sure the monitor is plugged into the 980? :P

Julez

Might be worth checking your power settings, I remember my computer was under performing before and I couldn't figure it out for ages, turns out I had "power saver" turned on in my power options. Doh!

evolutionqy7

Julez wrote: »

Might be worth checking your power settings, I remember my computer was under performing before and I couldn't figure it out for ages, turns out I had "power saver" turned on in my power options. Doh!

I'll check it. Unlikely as other games perform a fair bit better.

And to the above. Yes. Display port is plugged into the GPU and not the motherboard.
980ti has more vram. Mighty make all the difference.

TerrorFirmer

Gamer Nexus also did a GPU chart for Fallout 4 with a load of different GPU's paired with the i7.

You can see the GTX980 here. 1440P ultra, avg 65fps with a 0.1% low of 50fps.

Now you are running higher than standard 1440p resolution, but not so much that you should have to run at all low settings.....

ShiverinEskimo

They also benched Fallout 4 in his exact UltraWide resolution. He should be hitting nearly 50fps with ultra settings. See link for a range of benching done on a 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor.

game4it70

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

You could find a used GTX 980 for less than that, it would give you the same performance in everything except AMD-optimised titles.

Yes you could,maybe even a cheap 980ti.Some people don't buy used though.

It was in stock when i posted which is as rare as rocking horse s... atm.
A new card with 3 year warranty is not to be sniffed at either.