Computer to run the game

[mbailey]

mbailey, look up on youtube about how to build a computer yourself and you will see how easy it is.  you basically need to know how to use a screwdriver.  it is pretty simple.  and you could probably get better components than if somebody else builds it for you.

I built my own when I knew as much as you do now.  now I can take it apart and put it back together without my reading glasses .


semp

Hey there Semp...good to see ya sir  
Id love to build my own, but life right now is nuts....Between buying a new home 3 months ago, 13yrold twins, work (im an insurance adjuster, lets justsay winter hasnt been kind to houses in my area, and im busier that a 1 armed wallpaper hanger) That and ive been spending my evenings helping my closest friend / hunting partner / partner in crime ( best way to describe him is the kind of friend that if you called and told him that you needed to bury a body...he wouldnt ask what happened...he would just ask what shovel he should bring..., and if im gonna bring the beer   )He suffered a severe spinal injury 2 weeks ago and just got out of ICU.....Im assisting in therapy and rehab so he can walk again, that and convincing him that he will walk again / keeping his spirits up...... due to these reasons  the time is just not there to do it...It would have been my preference to build one for sure and its a project im gonna tackle one of these days when life calms down a bit....Ill definatley hit u up for some advice when that time rolls around.....

Regarding being able to use a screwdriver......Heck im just happy to remember to put my pants on before i go out in the morning....that said for my own safety...hand tools are out of the question right now   

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Oh, my mistake! I thought we are talking about a surround system with three monitors? If so it absolutely does make a difference. The H81 will never support SLI or Crossfire, either. So, multi-monitor will hit the wall at two displays. The 770 is capable of four displays, but not on the system described, at least not at anything like what it would do on a PCIe 3.0 MB.

So  in the case of multi-monitors the comment about "nor is it even close to being one" is utterly wrong.

The 770 cannot exceed its max theoretical bandwith regardless of amount of monitors you connect to it. WTF are you babbling about?

The 770 is essentially a re-badged 680 so this comparison reveals the reality:

[mbailey]

The 770 cannot exceed its max theoretical bandwith regardless of amount of monitors you connect to it. WTF are you babbling about?

Play nice   

[Skuzzy]

The video card performance is independent of how much bandwidth of the PCIe bus it can use, at any given moment.

Being able to burst the data to the video card much faster allows the CPU to regain access to the rest of the I/O bus, which can help with sound and networking.

The faster bus speed also allows the video card to access system memory faster which reduces the amount of time the CPU will be locked out of system memory.

A lot of data has to be moved to the video card memory, before the video card can start processing it.  The faster this can be accomplished, the better the entire system will run.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The video card performance is independent of how much bandwidth of the PCIe bus it can use, at any given moment.

Being able to burst the data to the video card much faster allows the CPU to regain access to the rest of the I/O bus, which can help with sound and networking.

The faster bus speed also allows the video card to access system memory faster which reduces the amount of time the CPU will be locked out of system memory.

A lot of data has to be moved to the video card memory, before the video card can start processing it.  The faster this can be accomplished, the better the entire system will run.

Yes and this is why the graphics performance drops only by 30% even when PCI-E 1.1 x4 is used, which is 10 times slower than PCI-E 3.0 x16!

The difference between a 770 running 2.0 vs 3.0 is on average 0.4fps.

[Skuzzy]

It is not just frame rate.  It is also how well the system responds, overall.  Any improvement is a good one, and there will be an improvement.

It may not make itself visible in all applications, but for those heavy ones pushing all the resources of a computer, it can make a pretty good difference.

[Debrody]

It is not just frame rate.  It is also how well the system responds, overall.  Any improvement is a good one, and there will be an improvement.

It may not make itself visible in all applications, but for those heavy ones pushing all the resources of a computer, it can make a pretty good difference.

Skuzzy, he stated that he would only play a couple of games with that puter. No GPU-rendering or anything like that.
I agree that the 3.0 wont hurt anything, but would it give the user any practical advantage while running games?
But if a PCI 3.0 board isnt that much more expensive than a 2.0, surely i would choose the 3.0 one.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Skuzzy, he stated that he would only play a couple of games with that puter. No GPU-rendering or anything like that.
I agree that the 3.0 wont hurt anything, but would it give the user any practical advantage while running games?
But if a PCI 3.0 board isnt that much more expensive than a 2.0, surely i would choose the 3.0 one.

This and the story about not being able to run multi screen using PCI-E 2.0 are just not true.

[Skuzzy]

Games are one of the most resource intensive on computer hardware.  They want to run sound, graphics, networking, and device inputs all in real-time.  It is a brutal environment for a computer.

Whatever you see on the screen has to get loaded into the video card memory first.  The speed of the bus to and from the video card will impact the rest of the computers ability to appear to do multiple things, at the same time, and do it smoothly.

How much?  That is the question.  It will depend on the game and how the game apportions all its resources.  Whether or not the game is CPU bound, GPU bound, or well balanced will not matter so much.  Certainly a CPU bound game might show a larger advantage over a GPU bound game. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Games are one of the most resource intensive on computer hardware.  They want to run sound, graphics, networking, and device inputs all in real-time.  It is a brutal environment for a computer.

Whatever you see on the screen has to get loaded into the video card memory first.  The speed of the bus to and from the video card will impact the rest of the computers ability to appear to do multiple things, at the same time, and do it smoothly.

How much?  That is the question.  It will depend on the game and how the game apportions all its resources.  Whether or not the game is CPU bound, GPU bound, or well balanced will not matter so much.  Certainly a CPU bound game might show a larger advantage over a GPU bound game. 

I don't disagree with you there Skuzzy. Naturally the faster the bus the better. But as I said it is incorrect to claim that one couldn't run a multimonitor setup on PCI-E 2.0 board.

[Skuzzy]

I see no reason why 3 monitors cannot be driven by a PCIe 2.0 card.  From the video card's perspective, those three monitors represent higher a resolution, and nothing more. 

The amount of data involved is the same, whether the video card is running 320x240 resolution or 11,520x6480.