Computer & Tech Guides, Tips and How To's from TweakTown's Tweakipedia - Page 1
We've been spending the last week or so benchmarking a crap load of NVIDIA video cards on our 34-inch LG 34UC97 monitor, testing out its native 3440x1440 resolution. UltraWide gaming is really taking off these days, but without performance numbers across a bunch of hardware, it's hard to know where you'll find yourself when you come to picking a video card.
Gaming at 2560x1440 isn't so hard these days, with most $250-$400 cards handling most games on the market without a problem at 60FPS, while 4K requires more grunt. 3440x1440 falls in between both of these resolutions and gives - in my opinion - a better alternative to 4K gaming.
Now that we've tested the GeForce GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti, GTX 980 and GTX 780 - and then again with the same cards in SLI, it's time to test out some AMD hardware at 3440x1440. We've got a few high-end cards at our disposal, including the Radeon R9 Fury X, Radeon R9 295X2 and the Radeon R9 390X.
We kicked off our new 3440x1440 benchmarks a few days ago, testing out how the GeForce GTX 780, GTX 980, GTX 980 Ti and Titan X all performed on a 34-inch UltraWide monitor from LG. We're back again, this time toting two each of the GTX 780, GTX 980, GTX 980 and Titan X for some delicious SLI results.
In our first article, we found that running our suite of benchmarks at 3440x1440 was actually quite good on performance. Most games ran at 60FPS or above, with some of them dipping below 60FPS - this is easy to fix with a few tweaks to in-game settings. But what type of performance do you think we'll see at 3440x1440 when we're running two cards in SLI, especially the GTX 980 Ti and Titan X?
Gaming at 3440x1440 is just utterly beautiful, with the 21:9 aspect ratio really adding to the experience in some games. I'm mostly a Battlefield 4 player and the additional horizontal pixels are glorious, especially when you mix it with a 95-degree FOV with the in-game settings.
For the course of 2015 so far I've been running an LG 34UC97 monitor as my workstation display, taking in its glorious 34-inch size and 3440x1440 resolution. Since my review of the LG 34UC97 back in December 2014, the UltraWide monitor market has really blown up.
We're seeing a new 21:9 display released each month, and we're getting closer to the one that will rule them all: a 34-inch monitor with a native resolution of 3440x1440, but with NVIDIA's G-Sync technology. We should see that released next month, and you can bet your old display we'll have one of those to review very soon.
Until then, I've noticed that no sites are really covering UltraWide resolutions in their benchmarks. Well, we are starting today. We will be running all of our future cards in four resolutions: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3440x1440 and 3840x2160. But before then, we're going to do a couple of articles to bring you up to speed on various video cards running 3440x1440, and how they perform in our benchmark suites.
Windows 10 is finally here, but it's not smooth sailing for everyone. Some of us, including myself, still can't update their machines, awaiting the OK from Microsoft. But there are ways around that, and that's where this article will help you.
Microsoft is releasing Windows 10 in waves, which means that you can get it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be on your machine just yet. There are a few ways around this, where you can download the files yourself and burn them to a DVD or throw them onto a USB stick, or you can manually force the Windows Update software to pull the Windows 10 update from Microsoft, and update your machine manually.
This is the path I had to go down with my ASUS ROG G751 gaming notebook, and after following these steps, it worked. I had tried the other procedure - downloading the Media Creation Tool from Microsoft - but for me, it didn't work.
We teased that we were building two new PCs a little while ago now, and we've posted the final image of our new PC on our Facebook page, which had a huge amount of engagement with our fans - you, our readers. Well, here's the full PC, part by part, and some tips on building within the be quiet! Silent Base 800 chassis.
The goal of this system was to have something that would fit all of our goodies inside of it, run either the Acer XB270HU 27-inch 1440p 144Hz G-Sync display or the LG 34-inch 3440x1440 ultrawide monitor. I wanted it to be as close to silence as possible, all while using some of the fastest components we could.
Right now, I have two machines that power my entire office. The first of which is my video card review test bed, which is powered by an Intel Core i7-5820, the GIGABYTE X99 Gaming G1 Wi-Fi, 16G of Corsair DDR3 RAM, and more. My workstation machine is the ASUS ROG G751 gaming laptop, connected to two LG 34-inch UltraWide monitors at 3440x1440 each.
I have most of the parts for two entire new systems, with one of them bein
We have been powering through our AMD Radeon R9 Fury X content since the High Bandwidth Memory powered video card launched just 11 days ago now, where we have our review of the card on its own, two of them in CrossFire, and our latest: the R9 Fury X in triple 4K Eyefinity at 11,520x2160.
During this testing, the R9 Fury X on its own was good, but not great at 1080p and 1440p. At 4K however, it really came into its own. The second card really added some huge benefits to performance at 2560x1440 and 4K, but the single card on its own with a triple 4K Eyefinity monitor setup didn't really offer much over the NVIDIA offerings.
When I first reviewed the AMD Radeon R9 Fury, I wasn't completely sold on the new card. The refreshed Tonga-style Graphics Core Next architecture didn't add too much to the table, and while AMD were the first to use the super-awesome High Bandwidth Memory, it didn't actually trounce the performance of the GDDR5-based offerings from NVIDIA.
It put the R9 Fury X into a weird position, so I continued my work on it. We secured a second Fury X from AMD and got into CrossFire testing yesterday with some very promising results, which almost completely changed my stance on the card. In CrossFire, the R9 Fury X cards kick some major ass, but it's still not enough. The radiator is a huge hassle, which is where the Fury (non-X) will come in. We will have reviews on the Radeon R9 Fury cards in the coming weeks, which we're quite excited for.
Moving back to the Fury X, we have tested the HBM-based Radeon R9 Fury X on our triple 4K monitor setup. We have triple 4K screens providing a resolution of 6480x3840 in portrait, or 11,520x2160 in landscape.
I've been swamped with work over the last month, flying over to Taipei for Computex 2015, back for the launch of the GeForce GTX 980 Ti, the Radeon R9 390X, the launch event in Sydney, Australia for the Radeon R9 Fury X, and then the launch of the R9 Fury X itself. This means my triple 4K content has taken a slump, but I'm going to warn you now - be prepared, as it is back, and it's not going to stop anytime soon.
Now that we have had the launch of the GTX 980 Ti, R9 390X and R9 Fury X, we have plenty of cards to play around with now. Starting with the GTX 980 Ti cards in SLI, where we should see the 980 Ti beating the Titan X cards in SLI, so let's jump right into it, shall we?
The samples going out for the Radeon R9 390X haven't been well spread to other sites, but we were fortunate enough to have three separate cards sent to us for review. What do you do with three Radeon R9 390X cards? Well, you throw them into CrossFire and run them at 4K, that's what! We have our review of the SAPPHIRE Tri-X R9 390X 8GB and the MSI Radeon R9 390X Gaming 8G.
A single R9 390X provides ample performance at 4K with a mix of medium/high settings, but I wanted to see if AMD had improved the scaling on the 390X, which has impressed me so far. We've used our SAPPHIRE Tri-X R9 390X 8GB and MSI Radeon R9 390X Gaming 8G for our CrossFire testing, and only tested 4K obviously.
I was going to test 1080p and 1440p, but people spending $800+ on a duo of 390X cards most likely aren't going to sit around running 1080p. If you want to see 1080p and 1440p, let us know in the comments below and I'll write another article looking at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440.