I dont know why you said lol to my link.
MSI refers to the laptops as notebooks
MSI Geo40 gaming notebook for $1699 AUD http://www.pccasegea...oducts_id=24737
for the specs of i7 4702MQ processor, 16gb rams, GTX 760m 2gb and a 128GB SSD
I think its a pretty good price, most other "Gaming Laptops" would probably charge alot more.
you dont seem to say anything else then MS Word, internet and minecraft, so 128gb would be enough, if not, get a external 1tb HDD for $70 or so when there on sale.
If you reply "lol." again, actually explain why its bad, your willing to play $2200 on a laptop to play minecraft, I am pretty sure those specs would play it pretty good for $500 less, probably even play most recent games too on max or close to max settings.
SSD has faster reading and writing times, your really only going to have minecraft, windows, and if u get a big enough SSD, maybe a few more programs on it, for a game, it can sometimes improve loading screens.
For video editing I HEARD (not 100% sure) it can make rendering faster. so things like that.
Not sure, but 2 Asus 680 4gb cards may work out pretty good compared to 1 690, not 100% sure, but look for some benchmarks, the 2 680's might be a bigger performance boost.
YallahHabib, If you really want a mac, id suggest you buy it off the apple store's website, at least for the iMac you can upgrade parts, and is probably cheaper then buying it from retailer, due to jb not having to make it dearer to make a profit.
Yes; use the two DVI connections, and get an "active" display port to DVI connector.
That was such a simple answer compared to the above
If you looked up, I was responding to a guy who compared his 560 TI to my GTX 680 4gb card by temperature. So i went into more detail for him, how im running dual screens like breathing.
I previously said, he will be able to run 3 screens and said some temperatures that my GPU receives, but got responded by a
"ermahgawd mah 560 can dual screen too, it better then urs" so all you reallyy need to read is the last paragraph
So much wut. The GTX 680 will not run 3 monitors gaming on BF3 ultra, it won't happen. And by your logic, my GTX 560 Ti is better, because I can do the exact same thing.
Wait, your comparing my 680 4gb card to your 1gb 560 TI by temperature?
if so,
my GTS 250 black edition 1gb card beats your's because I can run 2 screens on it at like 40 celcius, and when I pulled it out of my PC few weeks ago, it had a bit of dust inside under the fan.
on topic:
lets dissect all of the posts by freeracercolin on this thread
Please just answer yes or no. I don't have time for any "That's a huge waste of money!" or "That is EXTREMELY overkill" http://pcpartpicker.com/p/R7vH
with his topic as "Can this handle a tri-screen setup"
with statistics of the performance of my GTX680 4gb card,
I can say, my GPU is treating my 2 24" monitors as nothing, I did not notice a single change from going from 1 to 2.
Currently, as I write this post and looking too my second monitor.
Temperature (celcius)
30
GPU Usage (%)
its going from 0% - 3%
I can say right now, 3 screens wont be stress on his GPU, he does not tell us he wants to play BF3 on 3 monitors, and I'm sure I could play BF3 on ultra on 3 screens, if my GTS 250 could play BF3 on ultra, I'm sure this card could, but I do not have 3 monitors, nor do I have BF3 installed.
For all we know, he wants to be able to play minecraft on one screen, youtube on a second screen, and MCF on his 3rd screen.
I have a ASUS GTX 680 DC2 4gb card, I currently run only 2 24" screens, but on idle, my GPU according to GPU Tweak idles at around 30-33 celcius after being on for a few hours, and its running at 10%, and the only thing i don't like about it is that it wont go above 10% fan speed till it hits around 50 celcius and the max temp I have seen was 70, if I needed, I could manually control my fan speed and bump it up when playing a game too get it even below 70, it runs at like 34% fan speed at 70 celcius. so the GPU should be fine.
No one argues, Intel is best for performance. AMD is best price/performance. a 8320 is around $180 last time i checked, it is hardly behind the i5-3570k in games, and surpasses it in rendering.
We don't prefer Radeon/AMD. they are the best right now. As said before, a 8320 is only hardly behind a i5 in gaming while cheaper, so we suggest it in builds. The 7970 is cheaper then a 680, while performing more or less on par in most games. SO we suggest it.
I have no problem suggesting a 2K computer, but it needs to be reasonable i posted a build of a cheaper price that contained a i5, 2X 7970s, and 3X monitors.
IIRC the thread your talking about correctly he was asking what kind of optifine he should use on that computer. the OP post sounded like he was either trolling, or bought that computer to play only minecraft. Even so the Titan is a WASTE of money. is you need something for gaming, a 7990 or 690 is better. For busniss level stuff, get a Workstation card..
We do fit budgets. thing is, people budgets are sometimes a waste. for example, 1.3k without multi monitor setups is as high as you should go, anything more is overkill. 2K/2.5k is as high as you should go with multi monitor systems. anything more is overkill.
price =/= performance. that's why you build a computer in the first place, its cheaper and better than a prebuilts. but people expect the terms of an alianware, spending $10k+ to get something good, so they have massive budgets.
We don't always suggest them. well, amd cards we do. After the 1K budget we go for Intel cpus. As stated before AMD are the best Price/performance cards out there. its not fanboyism.
this is a neutral forum. no basis here.
were suggesting the best part for the price.
no clue what your talking about there so have fun with software...
if anyone's crying, its your fanboy tears.
Most of the people here, well the good people, work as a IT for a living. we know what were saying.
Just every single PC build post, that someone posts something, it immediately gets told "NO, you pay $800" or close too it, and I don't think its a rare sight to see NVIDIA or Intel in a build who is not the OP.
Even on one of this sub forums for this on how to post in this section, They mention if the OP is pretty much willing to pay the money the NVIDIA card is better for performance, as it does not have such frame drops, and keeps it frames pretty constant.
A lot of tech people, I saw a few posts on Tom's Hardware about "You get what you payed for" implying paying a bit dearer for that NVIDIA card is always better.
for the AMD chips for less then 1k, that sounds prettyy decent, but I do suggest for more people to go for that 4ghz 8 core (8320 im guessing), i dont see many in part lists on this site.
I'm obviously not fanboying, I think I have suggest 2 or 3 AMD CPU builds and like 2 Intel, I do not know much about Radeon cards, So I usually go for the NVIDIA card atm.
I gather that you are in the IT buisness, I prefer the Software / Game development.
Thank you for understanding, finally someone gets it
I understand, because I have almost the same computer as you
I am glad I didn't bother posting, at one stage I was going to, to ask if anyone knew anything about certain things, now I am glad, It would of been the $700 budget PC that is gathering dust.
I say the oppsite, he wants overkill, lets give him overkill for a cheaper price.
I fail to see how my cheaper, and more overkill computer is worse then his.
a i7 3770k is loved by a lot of people, great performance, and easily overclocked.
If you want to get a bit cheaper CPU and save a bit more, get a i7 3820, still a great CPU, and saw OC pictures of 5ghz runningg stable and keeping it as their CPU speed for their everyday computer.
the 4TB HDD is a bit overkill and I doubt theres really any notable performance changes between the HDD i suggested, go with the Barracude 2tb, its cheaper.
For the $200 saving we made from the HDD, we can now add $100 to a new GPU that is overkill the 4gb GTX 680 DC II, great card, read a review of a guy OC to i think 1.3k and still get good temperatures.
At a cheaper price then the OP's proposed build, and fitting the looks of the OP prefering Intel and NVIDIA (Based on his proposed choice), the http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/ShBF is a brilliant computer.
To the OP, don't get misled by others, your friend you say seems to have the money that his willing too spend, let him have a awesome computer that wont need updating for ages.
lol at guy above me, 60gb ssd but 55gb free? so that means you dont have your os on it since windows 7 is like 12 ish gb, fresh install last time i checked? Boy you sure know how to put an ssd to good use.
Good for you if you prefer nvidia/intel, keep it to yourself. you said you recommend it to other people, DONT, if its not the best for the price don't recommend it "because you like it".
If you can't read, keep it too your self, or someone to explain it to you,
If i remember right, someone complained about your 120gb SSD, I'm happy I didn't get a 60gb one, I have 55gb left on my SSD, allows me to have some programs on my SSD still.
I fail too see where i said I got a 60gb SSD.
If not, maybe in capitals.
"I AM HAPPY I DID NOT GET A 60GB SSD, BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE 55GB LEFT ON MY SSD."
Good for you if you prefer nvidia/intel, keep it to yourself.
agaisnt you.
Good for you if you prefer radeon / AMD, keep it to yourself.
If the OP wants to spend 2k, he obviously wants a high end computer, if you can't handle that he has more money then you, this is not the right sub forum for you. If he has a NVIDIA and Intel in his build he showed off, he obviously prefers them.
I saw you guys rage at a guy who had the 3 or 2 titans, He needed it for bushiness reasons, and all you guys did was cry because you can only afford that $600 budget including monitor computer.
What needs to be done too make this a better sub forum:
* People need to learn to fit the OP's budget, and get the best parts he can afford for WHAT HE WANTS, not for 20% of his proposed price.
* Stop only recommending AMD and Radeon, yes they are cheap, I would get one if I had a $700 budget too.
* If not the above 2, create a sub sub forum for this, named "AMD / Radeon Fanboys" where everything posted in the original sub forum will get a copy sent to the "AMD / Radeon Fanboys" sub sub forum, to allow you to wine about how you could make a cheaper computer then such and such when he wants to pay 2k for his computer, I swear when i see them, every pc part picker link is less performance then the one before.
* And last of all, learn to read before you cry because someone says the opposite brand for a part.
Forgot to reply to someone about saying Minecraft can be sometimes software rendered.
Minecraft uses LWJGL, (Leight Weight Java Game Library).
LWJGL is a binding of OpenGL.
OpenGL uses the GRAPHICS card to render.
With LWJGL, you can not even create a window if the graphics card does not support OpenGL.
Minecraft uses VBO's (Vertex Buffer Objects) an Array of floats containing the vertexs and if a interleaved VBO, also the Texture / Colour values, If not a second array is sent to the graphics card.
You then call on OpenGL to draw the Array(s) that has been binded and sent to the graphics card.
With some testing while I was on FTB, I found that it was using around 350MHz to render with everything on low, view distance was tiny, fast textures, vsync and balanced FPS.
[/end of rant]
@OP
Good decision too move to tom's hardware and buildapc (never heard of that one before actually), They are for sure more professional and will probably not give a bias opinion, and I'm sure they would laugh at this sub forum.
Id say go for a i7 over a i5, and the 4gb gtx 680 is nice, if not go back to the 2gb, and itll cost only like 1.6k
4tb of HDD is a bit overkill, I never filled up my 1tb HDD, I still have 300gb left on it, and now i have a 2tb + a 120gb SSD. If he needs too he can always buy a new HDD in the future.
0
MSI refers to the laptops as notebooks
MSI Geo40 gaming notebook for $1699 AUD
http://www.pccasegea...oducts_id=24737
for the specs of i7 4702MQ processor, 16gb rams, GTX 760m 2gb and a 128GB SSD
I think its a pretty good price, most other "Gaming Laptops" would probably charge alot more.
you dont seem to say anything else then MS Word, internet and minecraft, so 128gb would be enough, if not, get a external 1tb HDD for $70 or so when there on sale.
If you reply "lol." again, actually explain why its bad, your willing to play $2200 on a laptop to play minecraft, I am pretty sure those specs would play it pretty good for $500 less, probably even play most recent games too on max or close to max settings.
0
MSI has some pretty good gaming laptops.
0
For video editing I HEARD (not 100% sure) it can make rendering faster. so things like that.
0
0
2
Pricing of a Alienware
80% brand
10% manufacturing
10% the price of the parts
aproximate, the price of the parts could be lower.
0
If you looked up, I was responding to a guy who compared his 560 TI to my GTX 680 4gb card by temperature. So i went into more detail for him, how im running dual screens like breathing.
I previously said, he will be able to run 3 screens and said some temperatures that my GPU receives, but got responded by a
"ermahgawd mah 560 can dual screen too, it better then urs" so all you reallyy need to read is the last paragraph
0
Wait, your comparing my 680 4gb card to your 1gb 560 TI by temperature?
if so,
my GTS 250 black edition 1gb card beats your's because I can run 2 screens on it at like 40 celcius, and when I pulled it out of my PC few weeks ago, it had a bit of dust inside under the fan.
on topic:
lets dissect all of the posts by freeracercolin on this thread
with his topic as "Can this handle a tri-screen setup"
with statistics of the performance of my GTX680 4gb card,
I can say, my GPU is treating my 2 24" monitors as nothing, I did not notice a single change from going from 1 to 2.
Currently, as I write this post and looking too my second monitor.
Temperature (celcius)
30
GPU Usage (%)
its going from 0% - 3%
I can say right now, 3 screens wont be stress on his GPU, he does not tell us he wants to play BF3 on 3 monitors, and I'm sure I could play BF3 on ultra on 3 screens, if my GTS 250 could play BF3 on ultra, I'm sure this card could, but I do not have 3 monitors, nor do I have BF3 installed.
For all we know, he wants to be able to play minecraft on one screen, youtube on a second screen, and MCF on his 3rd screen.
0
Nice computer, but I got to say, its going to be pretty pro, because who needs a CPU these days?
0
0
Just every single PC build post, that someone posts something, it immediately gets told "NO, you pay $800" or close too it, and I don't think its a rare sight to see NVIDIA or Intel in a build who is not the OP.
Even on one of this sub forums for this on how to post in this section, They mention if the OP is pretty much willing to pay the money the NVIDIA card is better for performance, as it does not have such frame drops, and keeps it frames pretty constant.
A lot of tech people, I saw a few posts on Tom's Hardware about "You get what you payed for" implying paying a bit dearer for that NVIDIA card is always better.
for the AMD chips for less then 1k, that sounds prettyy decent, but I do suggest for more people to go for that 4ghz 8 core (8320 im guessing), i dont see many in part lists on this site.
I'm obviously not fanboying, I think I have suggest 2 or 3 AMD CPU builds and like 2 Intel, I do not know much about Radeon cards, So I usually go for the NVIDIA card atm.
I gather that you are in the IT buisness, I prefer the Software / Game development.
0
I understand, because I have almost the same computer as you
I am glad I didn't bother posting, at one stage I was going to, to ask if anyone knew anything about certain things, now I am glad, It would of been the $700 budget PC that is gathering dust.
0
I fail to see how my cheaper, and more overkill computer is worse then his.
a i7 3770k is loved by a lot of people, great performance, and easily overclocked.
If you want to get a bit cheaper CPU and save a bit more, get a i7 3820, still a great CPU, and saw OC pictures of 5ghz runningg stable and keeping it as their CPU speed for their everyday computer.
the 4TB HDD is a bit overkill and I doubt theres really any notable performance changes between the HDD i suggested, go with the Barracude 2tb, its cheaper.
For the $200 saving we made from the HDD, we can now add $100 to a new GPU that is overkill the 4gb GTX 680 DC II, great card, read a review of a guy OC to i think 1.3k and still get good temperatures.
At a cheaper price then the OP's proposed build, and fitting the looks of the OP prefering Intel and NVIDIA (Based on his proposed choice), the http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/ShBF is a brilliant computer.
To the OP, don't get misled by others, your friend you say seems to have the money that his willing too spend, let him have a awesome computer that wont need updating for ages.
2
If you can't read, keep it too your self, or someone to explain it to you,
I fail too see where i said I got a 60gb SSD.
If not, maybe in capitals.
"I AM HAPPY I DID NOT GET A 60GB SSD, BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE 55GB LEFT ON MY SSD."
Lets check here: http://www.cpubenchm...h_end_cpus.html
I see Intel dominates the market in performance.
To use agaisnt you.
Good for you if you prefer radeon / AMD, keep it to yourself.
If the OP wants to spend 2k, he obviously wants a high end computer, if you can't handle that he has more money then you, this is not the right sub forum for you. If he has a NVIDIA and Intel in his build he showed off, he obviously prefers them.
I saw you guys rage at a guy who had the 3 or 2 titans, He needed it for bushiness reasons, and all you guys did was cry because you can only afford that $600 budget including monitor computer.
What needs to be done too make this a better sub forum:
* People need to learn to fit the OP's budget, and get the best parts he can afford for WHAT HE WANTS, not for 20% of his proposed price.
* Stop only recommending AMD and Radeon, yes they are cheap, I would get one if I had a $700 budget too.
* If not the above 2, create a sub sub forum for this, named "AMD / Radeon Fanboys" where everything posted in the original sub forum will get a copy sent to the "AMD / Radeon Fanboys" sub sub forum, to allow you to wine about how you could make a cheaper computer then such and such when he wants to pay 2k for his computer, I swear when i see them, every pc part picker link is less performance then the one before.
* And last of all, learn to read before you cry because someone says the opposite brand for a part.
Forgot to reply to someone about saying Minecraft can be sometimes software rendered.
Minecraft uses LWJGL, (Leight Weight Java Game Library).
LWJGL is a binding of OpenGL.
OpenGL uses the GRAPHICS card to render.
With LWJGL, you can not even create a window if the graphics card does not support OpenGL.
Minecraft uses VBO's (Vertex Buffer Objects) an Array of floats containing the vertexs and if a interleaved VBO, also the Texture / Colour values, If not a second array is sent to the graphics card.
You then call on OpenGL to draw the Array(s) that has been binded and sent to the graphics card.
With some testing while I was on FTB, I found that it was using around 350MHz to render with everything on low, view distance was tiny, fast textures, vsync and balanced FPS.
[/end of rant]
@OP
Good decision too move to tom's hardware and buildapc (never heard of that one before actually), They are for sure more professional and will probably not give a bias opinion, and I'm sure they would laugh at this sub forum.
0
http://au.pcpartpicker.com/p/ShBF
Id say go for a i7 over a i5, and the 4gb gtx 680 is nice, if not go back to the 2gb, and itll cost only like 1.6k
4tb of HDD is a bit overkill, I never filled up my 1tb HDD, I still have 300gb left on it, and now i have a 2tb + a 120gb SSD. If he needs too he can always buy a new HDD in the future.