funkyzoom's forum posts

#1 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

Yeah I was talking GPU wise, the CPU could last up to even 10 years from now in terms of gaming, if it's not going to die for some reason.

You may add another 280 if your MOBO allows.

My current mobo is an entry level one. If I ever decide to go for a crossfire setup in the future, I'll change the mobo.

If you didn't buy that PSU yet you could afford to tone it down a bit and save some extra cash. Really you don't need more than 600w if you don't plan on using two cards.

I have already bought all the components. The CPU is a real power hog (or so I heard) at 125 watts TDP, and the specifications for the video card mentioned the power supply requirement as '750 Watts'. Hence I went for an 800 Watts PSU. I knew it might be overkill, but at least I don't have to change the PSU if I ever decide to go for a Crossfire setup at some point in the future.

#2 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

@funkyzoom said:

I had to replace several parts of my gaming PC because my naughty 3 year old nephew poured water into my cabinet. I was strapped for cash, so I went for an all-AMD setup instead of Intel-NVidia (which would have been way above my budget). I settled for the following:-

AMD FX8320 3.5 GHZ 8 core processor (along with an aftermarket cooler)

AMD Radeon R9 280X 3GB graphics

8GB DDR 3 RAM

800 Watts Corsair Power Supply

Right now, I'm able to obtain 50+ fps on almost all games on the highest settings at 1080p. I don't plan on gaming at resolutions higher than 1080p in the foreseeable future, and also wouldn't be going for Eye-Infinity or any such features. I'm satisfied with anything abound 40 fps, and I don't mind turning of anti-aliasing (because that feature is a real resource hog, and usually not worth the performance hit).

Considering the above, how long would I be able to persist with this system, before it is eventually time to upgrade? I would probably overclock my hardware to squeeze out some more time from them, when the games can no longer keep up at stock frequencies. Please give me a rough estimate, because I'm not too knowledgeable about hardware aspects. Thank you.

You can grab R9 280 instead of the X version and OC it yourself.

You'll game for the next 2-3 years of max/high settings.

Thanks for your response! I have already bought the R9 280X, though. 2 to 3 years should be good enough for me. I'm pretty sure the processor would last much longer. I may only need to change the GPU and perhaps add more RAM after 3 years or so.

#3 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

I had to replace several parts of my gaming PC because my naughty 3 year old nephew poured water into my cabinet. I was strapped for cash, so I went for an all-AMD setup instead of Intel-NVidia (which would have been way above my budget). I settled for the following:-

AMD FX8320 3.5 GHZ 8 core processor (along with an aftermarket cooler)

AMD Radeon R9 280X 3GB graphics

8GB DDR 3 RAM

800 Watts Corsair Power Supply

Right now, I'm able to obtain 50+ fps on almost all games on the highest settings at 1080p. I don't plan on gaming at resolutions higher than 1080p in the foreseeable future, and also wouldn't be going for Eye-Infinity or any such features. I'm satisfied with anything abound 40 fps, and I don't mind turning of anti-aliasing (because that feature is a real resource hog, and usually not worth the performance hit).

Considering the above, how long would I be able to persist with this system, before it is eventually time to upgrade? I would probably overclock my hardware to squeeze out some more time from them, when the games can no longer keep up at stock frequencies. Please give me a rough estimate, because I'm not too knowledgeable about hardware aspects. Thank you.

#4 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

@funkyzoom said:

Alright then, I'll try overclocking it. I'm fairly experienced with overclocking, but I'm still slightly worried about shortening the life of the components.

A lot of it depends on which brand your getting and which 7950 your buying (the original 7950s where clocked at 800mhz while the 7950 boost edition where usually clocked around 900-925mhz). The 7950 rebadge that they sell now (R9 280) are mostly clocked in the 950-1050mhz range.

If you get a 7950 boost or R9 280 then you probably won't even need to overclock much at all (they all offer a good overclock from the stock 800mhz speed). If you do get an original 7950 then you can get the speeds of the 7950 boost/R9 280 as long as the cooler on it is decent

I've zeroed in on this card:- HIS Radeon HD 7950 3GB IceQ Boost. I suppose this one already has proper cooling, so it would be safe to overclock a bit.

#5 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

You shouldn't need that much more power for an overclock on stock volts. Most 7950s already come with an aftermarket cooler (brands like gigabyte, msi, asus, sapphire....ect) almost always use third party coolers.

Alright then, I'll try overclocking it. I'm fairly experienced with overclocking, but I'm still slightly worried about shortening the life of the components.

#6 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

Which country? Cause as far as I know in the us Amds are dirt cheap on ebay after the mining crash.

I'd go for it considering that they rebranded this card as the 280 thus making it midrange. It is still good.

I reside in India. The cost of buying high end PC hardware locally would actually be higher than the combined cost of the product and the shipping, when ordered from other countries. So for the graphics card, I would definitely be importing it from somewhere else, most likely through Amazon on ebay (depending on the product and shipping costs). Even my AMD 8320 processor, I ordered from ebay USA because it was extremely expensive in the local shops and local online retailers.

#7 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

There is no 7950 2GB. Its 7950 3GB unless your referring to the 7870XT 2GB (7870XT is a stripped down 7950 with slightly higher clocks).

7950 is a great card that overclocks very well (most people hit around 1050mhz on stock volts). Its going to be a good 30-40% upgrade over your 6950 depending on what its clocked at (the 6950 is slightly slower than a 7850 so a 7950, especially one that's overclocked, is going to be a good jump in performance).

Oops! My bad! Yeah, the 7950 is indeed 3GB! I don't plan on overclocking it, at least not yet. I guess overclocking requires a better power supply and an aftermarket cooler as well. I only have a 500W power supply (which is just about sufficient), and due to this unexpected expenditure (after my previous components got blown), I'm not really in a position to afford an aftermarket cooler or a power supply right now. So I guess that rules out overclocking for now, but I do plan on overclocking it sometime later. Anyway, I guess the minimum of 30% performance increase you mentioned should be good enough (my 6950 was also not overclocked). Thanks for your input, much appreciated!

#9 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

Firstly, I haven't posted here in a while, and I'm unable to find the 'PC Hardware discussions' forum anymore. So if that still exists, please pardon me for posting this question here.

My previous graphics card (AMD HD6950) got blown up a few days ago (along with my processor and motherboard) because my naughty 3 year old nephew poured water into my PC cabinet. I'm looking for replacements. I've already bought a mid-range motherboard along with an AMD FX 8320 processor. Now I'm a bit confused about the graphics card. I did a bit of research, and realized that the Radeon HD7950 is the only card which fits within my budget at the moment. I do play the latest games, but only at 1080p (my monitor doesn't support any higher resolution). And I ALWAYS keep anti-aliasing turned off, because the performance hit is not really worth the minor improvement in image quality (at least for my eyes). Also, I always game on a single monitor and don't make use of fancy features like eye-infinity or anything.

Considering the above aspects, would it make sense to go for HD7950 now? And how better is it compared to an HD6950? Considering my overall setup - I previous had an AMD FX 4210 processor with 8GB RAM and an HD6950 (2GB) graphics card. Now, I have an AMD FX 8320 Processor and 8GB RAM (Thankfully the RAM survived my nephew's assault), to which I'd like to add a Radeon HD7950 (2GB) card. So would my new setup perform marginally better than my previous one? Please advise.

P.S. I'd like to stick with AMD, so I'm not even considering Intel/Nvidia setups. I know that AMD components consume more power, but that's fine with me (because power costs aren't that high in my country). I'm not willing to shell out extra for overpriced Intel/NVidia products. So please focus only on AMD while answering my query.

#10 Posted by funkyzoom (1426 posts) -

@Nick3306 said:

@funkyzoom said:

This is hell. Bought Titanfall on PC yesterday, and haven't be able to play at all. Whether I try to play the campaign or multi-player, I always get this message 'Finding teammates...0results' even after waiting for 10+ minutes. Yeah, I reside in a third world country where I'm probably one of the very few Titanfall players. But still, is there no way to connect to servers outside my country? I don't mind high pings as long as I can just play it. The match-making is so crappy. I wasn't even able to search for servers manually so that I can join some game, ANY game. I just want to play this damn thing because I paid my hard earned money for it. I was skeptical about a multi-player only shooter due to match-making issues, and also because it is being published by EA (who care two hoots about their customers). But I was tempted to buy it after seeing youtube videos and reading positive reviews about it. Now, how the hell do I play this damn game? If EA are hell bent on trying to find teammates only within the player's country (which means I'm unlikely to find someone), will I be able to trick the game by using a VPN service? Or is Origin also region-locked like Steam?

P.S. NEVER will I buy any game from EA again, especially if its multi-player only. Please help me in whatever way you can, or else my hard earned money is gone down the drain, with this piece of crap occupying 50 gigs on my HDD.

I liked the part where you blamed the publisher for what was most likely the developers design plan.

So you you suppose it was just a co-incidence that EA was voted the worst company in America for two consecutive years? Haven't you witnessed the real mess that was Battlefield 4 multi-player (although its just about playable now)? EA has this tendency to interfere in the creative freedom and strategies of its developers. So I'm pretty sure that EA had a major part to play with this issue of Titanfall too.

Just change your data center to a more popular region like US or Europe. Pings might be bad but you should get a game at least. Also campaign has less players than the normal MP, which is a problem by design.

Yeah, I got to know that now. Earlier, the data center info at the bottom right of the screen was not even clickable, so I thought I was confined to the nearest data center. Turns out it was a glitch, and now I'm able to choose a data center after repairing game files. The pings are quite high, but for some reason I'm not finding it that much of an issue to compete with players having lower pings. Ping is a major issue in Counter-Strike games, where having a lower ping is more beneficial than having better skills. I was expecting the same for Titanfall, but I'm pleasantly surprised that is not the case.