warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Good point.. did I forget to do that? Sounds like something I'd forget..
I want to use it for some light gaming, but mostly web development and random web surfing. It won't be replacing my desktop.
Computer Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread II
- Thread starter Methos
- Start date
Good point.. did I forget to do that? Sounds like something I'd forget..
I want to use it for some light gaming, but mostly web development and random web surfing. It won't be replacing my desktop.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
You add a dash before the regkey to be deleted. That somebody told me.
After a marathon of issues with my computer, I have been given permission to get a new graphics card for my work computer. Which should I get. The requirements, roughly in order of priority:
Drivers for fedora (I would prefer the source being available, so I guess that means NVIDIA)
Dual monitor compatible (I currently use 1 on DVI and 1 on HDMI)
Not about to go out of support (like my Radion HD4550 which went out April last year, despite only being bought late the year before)
Now a load less important than them, but I would kind of like to have a CUDA compatable one. If it was a little more expensive I could easily justify it, if it was twice as much I do not think I could. The other thing is of course price, I am not sure what they will say but having the info to hand would help.
Drivers for fedora (I would prefer the source being available, so I guess that means NVIDIA)
Dual monitor compatible (I currently use 1 on DVI and 1 on HDMI)
Not about to go out of support (like my Radion HD4550 which went out April last year, despite only being bought late the year before)
Now a load less important than them, but I would kind of like to have a CUDA compatable one. If it was a little more expensive I could easily justify it, if it was twice as much I do not think I could. The other thing is of course price, I am not sure what they will say but having the info to hand would help.
tokala
Emperor
Then it will be a good choice, if you can live with the 768 pixel disply height.
Anything substantially better will be much more expensive.
Pretty much any video card meets those requirements. A Geforce 210 costs $30, and Nvidia has a single set of unified drivers for all of their cards back to ~2007.
I was reading this:
scan said:
But it is not clear what those mean in relation to the actual model numbers, like "GeForce GTX 650" which is about 100 GBP but I would have guessed is lower than the 8 or 9 ones.
Are you saying the Geforce 210 has CUDA supported?
Yes, the 210 has CUDA support, the wiki page lists all the CUDA compatible card.
It only has 16 CUDA cores though, so it's going to be somewhere on the order of 1% of the performance of a top end card with 2000+ cores. (I could be off by an order of magnitude, I'm not really sure how CUDA cores stack for performance.)
It only has 16 CUDA cores though, so it's going to be somewhere on the order of 1% of the performance of a top end card with 2000+ cores. (I could be off by an order of magnitude, I'm not really sure how CUDA cores stack for performance.)
Thanks, I should have looked but that wiki page has most of what I need. I am not too fussed about the power of that card. It would be only for development and proof of concept, if I actually got anything useful to do with it we would have to buy a better one.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
Looked up the model number; for that particular CPU it doesn't look like it's going to be possible if it's locked in the BIOS. You might be able to find the PLL number printed somewhere on the motherboard, but that varies by computer if it's present at all and I couldn't tell you where it's likely to be on your particular motherboard, though perhaps Google or an overclocking forum could.
Then that's probably a good choice. You don't need a particularly powerful card for CUDA development - it just takes longer for the program to run if it's less powerful. An inexpensive one makes sense if you aren't sure if you'll end up doing anything with CUDA. Back when I was in college I did a bit of CUDA development for a class on a video card with 32 cores, and it worked well enough for the purposes.
For Nvidia GPUs, the order they came out in is roughly:
2007 - GeForce 8000
2008 - GeForce 9000
2009 - GeForce 200
2010 - GeForce 400
2010 - GeForce 500
2012 - GeForce 600
I guess they thought 10000 was too high of a model number. But generally, this means that a GTX 680 > GTX 580 > GTX 480 > GTX 280 > 9800 GTX > 8800 GTX. However, it gets a bit fuzzier comparing, say, midrange to low-end. Whether a GeForce 210 is more powerful than an 8400 GT, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head, though in that case I think they are at least in the same ballpark.
The GeForce 300 is pretty much the same as the GeForce 200, and the GeForce 100 is pretty much the same as the GeForce 9000.
Oh, I forgot to reply to this - don't bother.
2.2 GHz to 2.5 GHz is ~14% increase.
That means that at best, if Arma II is completely CPU bound (which it probably isn't, unless you've got a top-end video card that completely mismatches the cpu, or you're playing at 800x600 at minimum graphics) and that performance in Arma II scales perfectly with clock speed (which is probably doesn't), you're looking at a 14% increase in performance.
Depending on your current fps, a 14% boost gives you the following results, in frames per second:
20 -> 23
30 -> 34
40 -> 46
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Hmm I've been looking at a bunch of laptops in my price range (which has slightly expanded, due to ambitions, alcohol, the geek inside, etc.) and all the good ones I'm finding have that 1366x768 resolution. I'm slowly educating myself on laptops, but.. is that really that bad? It doesn't seem to be. Here's what I'm looking at now:
Samsung NP550P5C-S03CA Intel Core i5 3210M 8GB 1TB GeForce GT630M 15.6IN WIN8 - $649.99
Processor seems good, 8gb ram, large HD (although no SSD, but I don't think I can reasonably expect one at this price point), 6 cell battery, win8 64, and a seemingly decent video card. This thing looks better than my desktop, which admittedly I put together back in 2007 (it has seen some upgrades since then though, but it's still impressing and allowing me to game)
So should I be looking for something with a better native resolution than that? Are all the laptops I'm looking at @ 1366x768 because I'm limiting myself to a certain screen size? (I want something somewhat portable)
I also always see the touchpad on the left hand side. Somebody earlier said that's not ideal.. Well.. They all seem to be on that side, so.. There's also the issue of the odd looking arrow keys. I'm not sure if that'd be an issue for me or not. I haven't figured out yet if that's a common thing on laptops these days or not.
I'm slowly assembling a spreadsheet of specs for various laptops, but it's a time intensive endavour and it's starting to make my head hurt. But this laptop that I linked is the best one I've looked at so far.. I think.
Thanks for all your input y'all, it's all being taken into consideration
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
I would try for 1920x1080 or higher, my laptop is 1920x1200, been using it for 4 years now and I still love it. If the intention is for light gaming and coding I would focus more on res and screen size, but that's just me. 
Well, again, if I was looking at a $650 total pricepoint and can't find one with a SSD, I'd get a $500 laptop, install my own SSD and use the original HDD as a backup drive.
For a laptop in that price range, I wouldn't get anything other than integrated graphics, it's dollars not spent on something more useful.
For a laptop in that price range, I wouldn't get anything other than integrated graphics, it's dollars not spent on something more useful.
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
Although SSDs have decreased dramatically in price these last few years, they are still something of a luxury. If you are truly on a budget and looking for the best bang for buck, 7500 HDDs ftw.
This holds especially true if you haven't been spoiled rotten by other SSD systems.
I was charged to find a laptop for a family member last Christmas. Gaming laptop with $750 budget. Guess what, no SSD. SSD is still a luxury, spend that moola on a larger screen or higher resolution.
This holds especially true if you haven't been spoiled rotten by other SSD systems.
I was charged to find a laptop for a family member last Christmas. Gaming laptop with $750 budget. Guess what, no SSD. SSD is still a luxury, spend that moola on a larger screen or higher resolution.
SSDs are only a luxury because manufacturers include idiotic options in budget laptops instead of an SSD upgrade.
Moving from $500 to $650 they'll add a DVD drive, increase the HDD from 500GB to 1TB and put it some junky discrete video, when instead they could have just put in an SSD for the same cost, which would have made a huge difference to the user experience unlike any of the other "upgrades".
Moving from $500 to $650 they'll add a DVD drive, increase the HDD from 500GB to 1TB and put it some junky discrete video, when instead they could have just put in an SSD for the same cost, which would have made a huge difference to the user experience unlike any of the other "upgrades".
Yes, I overprovision my SSDs with 25% free space, you can push this down to 15% or so, but shouldn't really go much lower than that.
Same as hard drives really, auto disk/file maintenance on hard drives starts being impacted in Windows at less than 15% free space.
Same as hard drives really, auto disk/file maintenance on hard drives starts being impacted in Windows at less than 15% free space.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
I had to do some close work with a program which didn't really have a decent zooming function and discovered the Windows Magnifer sort of sucks. Does anybody know a better one?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You guys (and other sites) have convinced me to stay away from 1366x768.. but.. every.. single.. laptop.. I look at has that as its native res. Jesus
