Jump to content

Sargun

Members
  • Posts

    564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Sargun

  1. Depending on how the computer is manufactured, good luck upgrading anything more than the storage or the memory. and RIP everyone with a macbook
  2. All the numbers in the world won't save them when their memberbase is as incompetent as they've shown themselves to be.
  3. Your computer's fine as long as you have the money to pay for it.
  4. You know something's the truth when Kadin and I are agreeing on it.
  5. "Once the game is running you won't see much of a difference between an HDD and an SSD since they're storage. " That's completely false. There is a significant difference in loading times and simple performance once you have an SSD. There are ample videos out there (such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN7QdNDVDTc) and plenty of discussion threads on various boards showing not FPS peak increases (which is determined by GPU/CPU) but a distinct lack of stuttering and no FPS drops when texture loads in. In addition, SSDs virtually eliminate texture pop-in. Further, SSDs will simply increase the "speed" (for lack of a better term) of many strategy games. Putting an SSD in a computer that plays EU4 or Civ 5 or any other game where the late-game slows down significantly will show you that you can save literal minutes off turn times just with an SSD upgrade; you can't do that with RAM, no matter how much you want to try. (There are plenty of discussions across the web, again, but just one example: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1oa8ic/psa_get_an_ssd_my_loadingturn_times_are_reduced/not to mention my own personal experience of turn times going from 25 seconds to 11). "I also never said that a CPU wasn't important, but RAM is most certainly important in the genre." Yeah... no. The difference between 4GB and 8GB in any strategy game is _NOTHING_ compared to the difference between a Pentium and an i5. You're legitimately just talking out of your ass at this point; you've been proven wrong by both anecdotes and benchmarks, you've been incorrect on dates, and you have no idea about the CPU bottleneck in strategy games. tl;dr I may be an idiot but at least I'm correct.
  6. 1. "RAM is a must for the strategy genre in particular" - not true. What's more important is CPU and HD/SSD. Increasing your RAM will do virtually nothing for most strategy games except let them bloat; the performance difference between a game taking up 1GB of RAM on a 4GB system and 2GB of RAM on an 8GB system is negligible at best, and certainly not worth the cost increase. CPU and HDD/SSD speeds are the bigger bottlenecks by far, and are worth significantly more in investment than RAM. 2. They weren't simply "testing framerate by RAM" and ignoring GPU/CPU, they were testing framerate with different RAM configurations in the same CPU/GPU configuration. They were literally answering the question of if RAM affects framerate or speed of game performance - and the answer was no, it did not. There was a negligible difference from 4 to 8 and zero difference from 8 to 16. 3. "Despite no single card having 4GB or 6GB when it came out" - except for my R9 280x, which had 6GB of VRAM, and came out in April of 2014. So not only do you not know anything about benchmarking, you also don't know anything about graphics cards. 4. Yes, they attempt to utilize VRAM, in part because of the 8GB GDDR5 configuration on the PS4. Developers are lazy and would rather just use ballooning VRAM requirements rather than actually code properly, but the reality of it is that these games never actually use the whole VRAM amounts. The GTX 970 scandal, for example, was that the last 500MB of accessible VRAM would slow down significantly. Many people complained that their games were starting to hit 3GB, 3.5GB, and even max out the VRAM usage and were wondering if they should return their cards. However, the reason games were using so much VRAM was simply that they were caching different files and not actually accessing them and utilizing the full 4GB; it would show that there were 3880MB being accessed, but it wasn't true - it's just Windows' archaic form of putting any kind of use as being access or utilized, even if the VRAM isn't being actively used. In order for you to actually hit and utilize the entire 4GB of VRAM in a way that would cause a real performance drop, you'd need to be playing in 4K with maximum AA and supersampling on. You had to seriously stress the card in incredible circumstances to hit that 4GB of VRAM utilization, despite popular opinion being that it happens often. So we've established that you don't know anything about benchmarking, or video cards, or even history ... so please, tell me more about how I'm the idiot.
  7. I've known you and VE for a very, very long time, and as usual, your cowardice grows wherever it gets the chance to bloom.
  8. It's mathematically proven 8GB is more than enough and any increase in RAM to 16GB or more has virtually no effect on gameplay. Hell, 4GB is enough, though on higher-end rigs you may want to go to 8 just for the two FPS increase for muh frames. http://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html At 1080p, a 970m will hit between 30 and 120 FPS on ultra settings on every AAA game out there. More intensive games like The Witcher 3 get around 26 FPS on ultra, and around 45 FPS on high. You'll get 170 FPS on the latest FIFA on ultra. EVOLVE, Battlefield Hardline, The Crew - all around 50-60 FPS. Tomb Raider gets 80+. Even Ryse gets around 45 FPS. And this is on ultra, which is usually filled with unnecessary graphics improvements that are virtually unnoticeable. You'll be paying way out the ass, but you'll at least have a very solid rig.
  9. I've already approached Tenages and gotten an affirmative about going on. :]
  10. "This has been a long time coming" No, it hasn't. This was a spur of the moment move of cowardice. VE, you have no honor. UPN, you have no honor. Dishonor on your cow, dishonor on this poorly-written treaty, and dishonor on you when both of you crumble when the rest of the world wakes and sees you for the cowards you are.
  11. He's not kidding. If you want to troll, do it in the proper subforums. This is bad for you, bad for our alliance, and bad for the entire community when you shitpost here. Please do everyone a favor, including yourself, and respect the rules of the boards.
  12. The amount of civility in this thread disgusts me.
  13. This is why we elected Bush twice.
  14. Nation Name: Acadiana Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12033
  15. You gonna upgrade our protectorate to an MDP now so we can fill the void?
  16. Chris V https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=17058
  17. Mr Smith https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=7327
  18. Who cares? Shut the !@#$ up and leave instead of making a shitpost about it.
  19. 100% best intro post. Time to establish dominance.
  20. Were you testing the player ad page earlier? If so, that might explain why I couldn't trade for a while
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.