EPT$30 is only about 10% of MSRP in US prices, compared to what I assume is just about anywhere else in the world. In terms of EU prices it'd amount to app. 5% of retail prices at the time the entire thing was discovered.
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 619
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
$30 is only about 10% of MSRP in US prices, compared to what I assume is just about anywhere else in the world. In terms of EU prices it'd amount to app. 5% of retail prices at the time the entire thing was discovered. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
 IIRC my MSI gaming 970 was about $500 including shipping after currency conversion. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
Not that it's surprising though. Still slimy. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
| ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
I'm certain the vast majority of people who bought a 970 are more than happy with their purchase. It was reviewed as a great value card with good performance for what is by far the more mainstream benchmarks in 1080p60. That doesn't make it any less of a problem that nvidia was allowed to try and downplay what they actually did versus what they advertised. I will say though that I have definitely hit vram usage of 3,5GB or above, just on 1080p before, so it isn't outlandish for someone with a 970 to run into issues because of this debacle. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
I will say though that I have definitely hit vram usage of 3,5GB or above, just on 1080p before, so it isn't outlandish for someone with a 970 to run into issues because of this debacle. The first game that i got with my 970 needed more VRAM for max textures @1080p (in 2014!) I blamed the stuttering, crashing and being stuck at 3584MB on the game because it seemed silly to even think about it being a hardware issue | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
2133mhz single channel = 24fps min, 81fps avg ~ 92.5% of baseline performance 2133mhz dual channel = 26fps min, 87 avg ~ 100% of baseline performance 3200mhz dual channel = 32fps min, 103 avg ~ 120% of baseline performance From that data, single vs dual channel RAM seemed relevant but not all that important. Z170 chipset for faster than 2133 RAM support looks very important for sc2. It does also raise more questions as to how scaling works (bandwidth vs latency) at this level of RAM performance | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Specs below: Uprgrading from 2 stick of 2GB to 2 sticks of 4GB. All sticks are DDR3, 1333mhz from Kingston. Link to the new RAM is here. OS: Win10 64bit Motherboard: Asus M4A77TD PRO Graphics card: AMD Radeon HD 5770 CPU: AMD Phenom II x2 555 BE PSU: Antec NeoEco 380 watts HD: 500GB WD Caviar Blue, 1TB WD Caviar Blue Two other things of note. The previous night before even touching the RAM, my computer did the exact same thing with the blank screen. I narrowed it down to the graphics card fan not working properly. Removed the card, cleaned out a crap load of dust from the heatsink and got it working again. Also, I've been getting notifications for like 1.5 months that my boot HDD is failing. I've got a SSD ready to clone it over, but I'd obviously rather not go through the hassle if the motherboard is on its way out anyway. I know with a list of problems like this and the system's age, it's probably better to just get a whole new PC, but I don't really game on my PC much anymore, it's mostly used for web browsing, office and youtube so I'm reluctant to spend the money, but if I have to... Thanks for reading, sorry for the wall of text. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
On July 29 2016 22:35 Divine-Sneaker wrote: The notion that anyone would ever in their sane, reasonable mind be a fan of one of two competing companies that deliver products like these is just so mindblowingly stupid to begin with. I'm certain the vast majority of people who bought a 970 are more than happy with their purchase. It was reviewed as a great value card with good performance for what is by far the more mainstream benchmarks in 1080p60. That doesn't make it any less of a problem that nvidia was allowed to try and downplay what they actually did versus what they advertised. I will say though that I have definitely hit vram usage of 3,5GB or above, just on 1080p before, so it isn't outlandish for someone with a 970 to run into issues because of this debacle. I guess I have a higher threshold for emotional investment/outrage over something like this. I'll take the $30 and be at peace. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
i'm not sure the best way to proceed there.. there are some CPU/memory related settings that may have an effect. Try manually setting the main timings (like 9-9-9-24 for example.. differs between different RAM kits, it should say on the box/RAM?) and voltage as you would for 1333mhz, but actually setting the RAM down to 800mhz or so as well.. if you do that with one of the new sticks, the second one might work. | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
On July 31 2016 05:20 trifecta wrote: I guess I have a higher threshold for emotional investment/outrage over something like this. I'll take the $30 and be at peace. It's about the principle rather than outrage. Image instead of a piece of pc hardware it was a small city car. It was advertised as a reasonably priced 3cylinder, low performance but econimical car. But it turned out the company attempted to hide the fact that the engine was even shittier, and also tried to cover it up, and then downplay it when caught. Sure, it still performed it's original purpose of transport, but if you were to drive it on the highway where a city car with a tiny engine would normally be pushed to about its limits, this one would just be unable to reach the cruising speed. It might not affect most people, but it's certainly not just to be brushed aside or settled for an insignificant amount of compensation after acting with ill intent. I'm obviously happy consumers managed to get something out of valid complaints for once, but in my mind it's not nearly enough. | ||
|
BassInSpace
Australia165 Posts
Thanks for your help. I went into the BIOS to change the other settings you mentioned, and came across the BIOS update tool. I didn't even know about BIOS updates so I went ahead and updated it just to see how it would go, and it's working now. Also had to make sure the 2 sticks were in alternating slots. Thanks for your help! Wouldn't have come across this if I wasn't trying to fiddle with the timing settings. While I'm here, another quick one. I'm going to clone my boot HDD over to a SSD. The HDD has been giving failure errors for awhile, with a reallocated sectors count reading of 559 (real value). If I clone this HDD over, there should be no problems right, given this is actually a physical problem on the HDD which can't be transferred over? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
For the HDD thing, it's fine to transfer data over. Cloning sometimes doesn't work very well but transferring data is fine; might be better to just reinstall OS if you're fine with that. You can have a HDD with reallocated sectors that runs fine for many years (my 1TB has had 4015 for like 2-3 years) but they can also just stop working overnight at random. Storage drives in general do that sometimes, especially HDD's. A steadily increasing reallocated sectors count is more worrying than one that went up once or twice and then stayed stable | ||
|
segers
12 Posts
Any ideas? Also changed the voltages etc.. to test it if it'd make any difference but no difference whatsoever unfortunately. Not an expert in voltages and whatnot so I read up on some threads on various websites where people had the same problem and applied the voltages that they were advised to use. using a Gigabyte GA-Z97x-gaming 3 motherboard and an i7 4790k cpu. First time I've actually encountered this (this isn't the first build I've done by myself) and I honestly can't find the solution (can't imagine the RAM really being faulty, else I think it wouldn't even run at 2133 or at all even.. And yes, I've updated my BIOS to the latest version which is supposed to correct/improve memory compatibility (though unfortunately it's not making any difference), | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On August 01 2016 03:19 segers wrote: My 16gb RAM memory from Kingston HyperX (2400 kit) won't run at 2400, works just fine at 2133 but when I try to make it run at 2400 my pc tries to boot, then just restarts and then gives me a menu to load the last working settings, another option and the last option is to enter bios and then I select the 2133 profile in the XMP choices and it boots up just fine. Personally I don't mind it's running at 2133 but on the other hand, I bought a 2400 kit, which is supposed to run just fine at 2400, so I feel like I've just spent money that I shouldn't have (in a sense). Any ideas? Also changed the voltages etc.. to test it if it'd make any difference but no difference whatsoever unfortunately. Not an expert in voltages and whatnot so I read up on some threads on various websites where people had the same problem and applied the voltages that they were advised to use. using a Gigabyte GA-Z97x-gaming 3 motherboard and an i7 4790k cpu. First time I've actually encountered this (this isn't the first build I've done by myself) and I honestly can't find the solution (can't imagine the RAM really being faulty, else I think it wouldn't even run at 2133 or at all even.. And yes, I've updated my BIOS to the latest version which is supposed to correct/improve memory compatibility (though unfortunately it's not making any difference), There's a chance that you might have to manually set something on the CPU memory controller - this has to be stable at 2400mhz as well, even if the RAM sticks are 100% fine. The stock (and guaranteed) speed of the memory controller is around 1600mhz, so these RAM speeds are actually a pretty large overclock to it. 2400mhz is not usually an issue AFAIK, with many 4790k's able to reach the high 2000's to 3000 range via memory controller tweaks. What's your RAM setup? If it's 2x8 then make sure it's in the correct slots (1 and 3, rather than 1 and 2 side by side). If it's 4x4 then that's harder on the memory controller. | ||
|
segers
12 Posts
On August 01 2016 04:41 Cyro wrote: There's a chance that you might have to manually set something on the CPU memory controller - this has to be stable at 2400mhz as well, even if the RAM sticks are 100% fine. The stock (and guaranteed) speed of the memory controller is around 1600mhz, so these RAM speeds are actually a pretty large overclock to it. 2400mhz is not usually an issue AFAIK, with many 4790k's able to reach the high 2000's to 3000 range via memory controller tweaks. What's your RAM setup? If it's 2x8 then make sure it's in the correct slots (1 and 3, rather than 1 and 2 side by side). If it's 4x4 then that's harder on the memory controller. I actually thought those XMP profiles did almost everything except the voltages if you're going at higher speeds, and I believe I've set them next to each other, so I guess I'll try and put them on 1 & 3 (2 bars of 8). | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
| ||
|
segers
12 Posts
Won't be doing that upgrade soon though as when I'd do that I'll be going for a new gpu also. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
up'd the voltages etc but still nothing The CPU memory controller voltages are different ones | ||
|
segers
12 Posts
On August 01 2016 05:38 Cyro wrote: The CPU memory controller voltages are different ones I know, it's the System Agent Voltage in the gigabyte bios, and I bumped it up notch by notch, went as far as +0.065V (there are people who only go up to like +0.025 and it works) but it still won't work, however 2133 works fine at default voltages. | ||
| ||
