|
On September 30 2015 01:13 Cyro wrote:
A 660ti won't use 225w especially at stock, you can ignore that. You have two native 6-pin power connectors on your PSU though? Does the PSU have a label saying how much 12v power it delivers? (usually in amps)
My PSU has 1 native 6 pin and I'm using a 2xmolex to 6pin adapter for the other, which works fine for the HD4870. In terms of output the PSU label says 0.3A on the -12V, 15A on +12V CPU, 12A on +12VD and 17.5A on +12VB for a total 414W on 12V.
What I don't get is that it is not failing under high load when you would expect high power draw, but the comp won't even POST. Could the graphics card not be compatible with the shitty old HP motherboard it is in? It's plugged into a slot labelled "PCIe2 X16 75 + 75W" and I understood that the PCIe slots are backwards compatible so the fact the 660ti is a PCIe3 card shouldn't matter.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
I think it should work but i think i've also had a midrange GPU refusing to do anything because of a second power connector not plugged in properly
|
Did twitch change the overlay or its bugged? I see youtube overlay when I watch a stream on twitch oO
|
Canada13408 Posts
Ok! So my old hard drive began to fail.
Tried to clone it, and I couldn't boot from the clone.
New hard drive, installed fresh windows install.
I want to recover my personal files from my old hard drive (which still works just freezes/hangs and has bad sectors on it). However, when I plug it into my PC as a 2nd drive I get a boot drive inaccessible error when I select my new drive.
Is there some way for me to recover the personal files off the old hard drive (which I have mostly backed up but there are steam games I would prefer not to use my data cap on) to the new hard drive without an external enclosure?
I don't mind getting an enclosure for the drive but seeing as how I have a ton of unused SATA ports on the motherboard, I was hoping to avoid this cost. Any ideas as to what might be preventing my PC from booting when I plug the old drive in?
Both have windows installs on them and both boot independently if that makes a difference. I just don't want to have to use my small backup drive to transfer 200gb at a time, since I mostly use that for photo and document back up.
Thanks!
(and yes, I realise I should probably invest in a larger drive to create system images but im stupid and just a little bit cheap)
Edit: Interestingly, after about 15 minutes windows decided to find all the files on my thesis partition. I guess that the thesis partition cloned successfully and installing windows fresh to C partition meant that I only lost my non school related personal files and games. Kinda nice. Still want my steamapps though 
Ok, more oddity: things like FRAPs still exist in the C drive, but I reinstalled windows after the clone failed and I am pretty sure i clicked the format option on the partition before reinstalling. Maybe i didnt? Can someone explain why some of my old files are slowly showing up O.O
|
my computer blue screened and did a physical memory dump. any idea what I should be looking for as a posssible reason?
|
|
|
|
|
I do have an SSD and HDD. Its possible that I can install a game on HDD directly or I have to install on SSD and then shift the files to HDD?
I wanted to install on HDD but it says "wrong direction".
|
If you are talking about Steam, you can create several "libraries" on different drives. You can do that when you start the installation for a game.
If you mean a game's own installation program, you can normally choose the folder where you want it installed and it can be on any of your drives.
|
might not be "simple" but anyone have (performance related) thoughts about sc2 running in 64 bit (patch 3.0)?
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On October 06 2015 14:48 y0su wrote:
might not be "simple" but anyone have (performance related) thoughts about sc2 running in 64 bit (patch 3.0)?
Hopefully it stops blizzard from being stupid, running into 2GB RAM cap and unloading stuff causing stutters when reloading things. That always annoyed me, one of the many sources of sc2 engine stutters. I've done less of the "skip replay to end, go back to period you want to benchmark, x4 through it, go back again, x4 through it, go back again, actually benchmark this time" on Legacy.
Nothing else really
|
On October 06 2015 14:48 y0su wrote:
might not be "simple" but anyone have (performance related) thoughts about sc2 running in 64 bit (patch 3.0)?
The performance should improve a little. The change to 64-bit size for stuff isn't really important, but there are also other changes when the CPU architecture changes from "x86" to "x86-64".
+ Show Spoiler [thoughts, details] +I think the main thing is the amount of registers for x86-64 is doubled compared to x86. Those "registers" are where machine code holds interim values to not have to access memory all the time while calculating stuff. The low number of registers was a thing where x86 was crappy compared to the competition back in the day. The machine code is created by a compiler out of the source code, so the programmer doesn't have to work on the source code to get an improvement out of the extra registers of x86-64. On the other hand, there might not be a lot of spots in the program where the extra registers are used and then this does nothing.
I'm guessing other differences don't really matter.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On October 06 2015 16:49 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2015 14:48 y0su wrote:
might not be "simple" but anyone have (performance related) thoughts about sc2 running in 64 bit (patch 3.0)?
The performance should improve a little. The change to 64-bit size for stuff isn't really important, but there are also other changes when the CPU architecture changes from "x86" to "x86-64". + Show Spoiler [thoughts, details] +I think the main thing is the amount of registers for x86-64 is doubled compared to x86. Those "registers" are where machine code holds interim values to not have to access memory all the time while calculating stuff. The low number of registers was a thing where x86 was crappy compared to the competition back in the day. The machine code is created by a compiler out of the source code, so the programmer doesn't have to work on the source code to get an improvement out of the extra registers of x86-64. On the other hand, there might not be a lot of spots in the program where the extra registers are used and then this does nothing.
I'm guessing other differences don't really matter.
Just ran my benchmark on 32-bit and my performance was actually 10% higher than i've managed to record it before (while always benching in 64-bit), though my CPU is clocked 100mhz up and maybe has some other settings tweaked now.
tl;dr not a great scientific tests but obviously no huge performance improvements with 64
Ran both now to check without restarting system or changing other variables:
64 bit = 75 min, 106 average.
32 bit = 80 min, 113 average.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yCi66MK.png)
Green = 32-bit. The slow frames are actually notably faster for 32 bit (look at the slower frames at the very start!), percieved performance improvement could be higher than expected.
At this point, this is an old build of sc2 (beta has not been updated for ages and might not ever be updated before it comes down) while the main sc2 client is about to be updated to 3.0 - these results might not be representative of the experience there.
|
I am looking into buying a new laptop for university as the screen on my current one seems to die soon. Because of my experience with Lenovo, I will probably stick to it. I am not asking for a specific recommendation, but rather for general advice since I don’t pay much attention to the laptop/netbook market. Are there some series that I should avoid or who are generally considered good at the moment? Is this a good time to get a new one or should I rather wait a bit since a new line is about to come out?
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:53 waffelz wrote:
I am looking into buying a new laptop for university as the screen on my current one seems to die soon. Because of my experience with Lenovo, I will probably stick to it. I am not asking for a specific recommendation, but rather for general advice since I don’t pay much attention to the laptop/netbook market. Are there some series that I should avoid or who are generally considered good at the moment? Is this a good time to get a new one or should I rather wait a bit since a new line is about to come out?
What are your priorities? Performance(if so, what type?), screen size, battery life etc
The newest Intel CPU's should be hitting laptops around now if they're not already out, it's a pretty good time to buy
|
On October 07 2015 01:09 Cyro wrote:
What are your priorities? Performance(if so, what type?), screen size, battery life etc
The newest Intel CPU's should be hitting laptops around now if they're not already out, it's a pretty good time to buy
I don’t need a dedicated GPU since I will only use it for programming and word/excel/powerpoint stuff, so CPU performance is key. Screen size I am not sure about yet, but I assume 14” would be the minimum and I definitely want a non-glare IPS-panel again (which most of the lenovo stuff has since its actually for work). Battery life isn’t that big of an issue, all our rooms have plenty socket-outlets and if needed I would just get a high-capacity battery. Kept my initial request a bit vague as I didn’t want to annoy anyone with another “get me a laptop!”-post. I was more thinking like when I got my initial one there where a few series recommended to me, especially the X-series of which I then got the one that seems the most fitting. I was hoping that there is currently one that is generally considered as good since I was told lenovo tends to have some shitty modelseries from time to time.
Also, I am familiar with the current hardware for desktops, but when it comes to portable I am totally clueless. What would be the current/new CPU-generation for laptops?
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
|
If I watch an embedded twitch stream on TL, does it mean I am watching it on adobe flash player and not on pepper flash?
I am using chrome and all I know that pepper flash gives me blue screens (not always), while it never happened on adobe flash.
|
On October 07 2015 01:47 waffelz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 01:09 Cyro wrote:
What are your priorities? Performance(if so, what type?), screen size, battery life etc
The newest Intel CPU's should be hitting laptops around now if they're not already out, it's a pretty good time to buy I don’t need a dedicated GPU since I will only use it for programming and word/excel/powerpoint stuff, so CPU performance is key. Screen size I am not sure about yet, but I assume 14” would be the minimum and I definitely want a non-glare IPS-panel again (which most of the lenovo stuff has since its actually for work). Battery life isn’t that big of an issue, all our rooms have plenty socket-outlets and if needed I would just get a high-capacity battery. Kept my initial request a bit vague as I didn’t want to annoy anyone with another “get me a laptop!”-post. I was more thinking like when I got my initial one there where a few series recommended to me, especially the X-series of which I then got the one that seems the most fitting. I was hoping that there is currently one that is generally considered as good since I was told lenovo tends to have some shitty modelseries from time to time. Also, I am familiar with the current hardware for desktops, but when it comes to portable I am totally clueless. What would be the current/new CPU-generation for laptops?
Definitely get something ~1080p and not e.g. 768p. You'll hate life programming on small res (pretty much double the lines of code vertically).
|
On October 07 2015 09:18 Craton wrote:
Definitely get something ~1080p and not e.g. 768p. You'll hate life programming on small res (pretty much double the lines of code vertically).
Yeah my current laptopscreen is 12.5" 768p. I initially got it for a different subject and got used to it but I know the struggle which is why I won’t simply replace the screen but rather get a new laptop. I am surprised that prices seem to be much more stable than for desktop hardware though. I dropped about 1k on my current laptop 4 years ago and expected to easily get something much better now in the same price range, but apparently I was mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
