Helping with tech questions - TweakTown's Ask the Experts - Page 5

Hi Mat,

This is a good question, as there is no technical downside to having 4 x 4GB of RAM in a system. This comes down to the chipset, where if you were using Intel's latest X99 chipset, you'd have quad-channel RAM. So, using four sticks of RAM is what you want. But, if you had a dual-channel chipset, then using four sticks is also fine.

If your motherboard has four DIMMs max, which most do, and you're using a dual-channel capable chipset, then four sticks is fine. The only 'downside' to that would be your upgrade path, which would be maxed out at 16GB. You could use 2 x 8GB sticks, leaving two of them open to another 16GB, which would have your system enjoying 32GB of RAM.

So, to answer your question: no, there are no downsides - you're just limiting your system to 16GB of RAM versus 32GB. And unless you're doing heavy video editing or similar, 16GB of RAM is more than enough.

Hi there Frank,

Most of the time, the VGA card is going to suck up the most amount of power. I have a review coming up soon on the VisionTek Radeon R9 270X 2GB OC, which is nearly identical to the card you're running, and my total system load during a game of Battlefield 4 at 4K was drawing 230W.

For your system, you'd be drawing less than 350-400W even if you had multiple mechanical HDDs, high-speed fans, and even LEDs. I wouldn't worry about upgrading the PSU for its power output. However, if you had a non brand name PSU, maybe you could consider buying a branded PSU like Corsair, and going for an 850W which should ensure you're safe from upgrading for quite sometime.

As you can see from the chart above, even NVIDIA's GeForce GTX Titan X in SLI only consumes 530W of power. The SAPPHIRE Radeon R9 290X 8GB Tri-X cards in Crossfire chew much more, with 740W total. I would suggest waiting, and using your current PSU unless it's a non brand name - then maybe you could upgrade, but don't be in any rush. For now, you're fine.

Hey there Rahul,

So sum it up easily: yes, your 850W PSU will be fine. Firstly, it's a Cooler Master unit so you know it's a good quality PSU. Second, 850W is more than enough for a single card.

We recently did some testing on the SAPPHIRE Radeon R9 290X 8GB Tri-X card, that would have similar power consumption to the MSI card you are upgrading to, and it didn't consume anywhere near 850W even when under full 100% load, and overclocked.

As you can see from the above shot from our article, you'd be looking at around 450-600W or so under full load. Your 850W will be just fine and I'm sure you're going to more than enjoy that kick-ass MSI Radeon R9 290X Lightning video card!

Hey there Sohaib,

This is a great question, and something that's easy to answer, but it really depends on the resolution of your display. If you are running a 1080p monitor, a single Radeon R9 290/290X would be enough. For a 1440p display at 60Hz, the same applies. But if it's a 120/144Hz monitor, then a second R9 290/290X would definitely be put to good use depending on the game.

If you're running a 4K monitor, then a second R9 290/290X would definitely be something I'd recommend for performance, but for power consumption and what AMD has coming soon, I would not recommend it. If you've already got a single R9 290/290X and were going to purchase another - I would keep your single card as it will be good enough for your display.

As for power consumption, a single R9 290X consumes around 450-500W of power. A second card can bump this up to ~800W or so, and with overclocking, you could easily reach 1000W or so for a pair of 290X's in Crossfire. Our last review looked at the SAPPHIRE Radeon R9 290X 8GB Tri-X, which consumed 450W in Battlefield 4, and while overclocked, a huge 625W.

AMD is close to releasing their Radeon R9 390X, which should provide much more performance, all while using similar, if not less power than a R9 290X right now. My advice, would be to stay where you are with the single card and wait it out, or upgrade to the R9 390X when it's released.

Hi there Hosam,

This is a great question, where everyone is going to have a different answer. In a majority of situations, an Intel processor will beat an AMD processor. Video editing, gaming, virtually anything processor intensive, will have the Intel coming out of the flames holding the winning flag.

• If you were building a video or photo production/editing PC, then I would definitely recommend Intel.
• If you were building a new gaming PC, both options are great.

We've done some testing, and even at 4K the AMD CPU keeps up and actually beats a high-end, expensive Intel set up.

I would suggest getting what fits your budget, and if you can Intel. If you can't afford the Intel set up, an AMD set up definitely is not a bad decision, especially for the budget-minded gamer.

Hey Brett,

My thoughts on DirectX 12, hey? We're seeing DX12 adopted pretty quick with the new GeForce GTX 900 series from NVIDIA having full support for it, and we're on the eve of the Radeon 300 series which will have support for DX12, too. We will need to see new hardware, but by the time it's here we should have plenty of new GPUs to choose from.

Intel and AMD will be right on it, as they are all part of the DX12 movement thanks to AMD, Intel and NVIDIA all having tight partnerships with Microsoft. On top of that, they will all want to push DX12 forward as it will really differentiate PCs away from consoles, and it'll sell boatloads of new hardware.

Mantle is done with now, as AMD has even said it wants to see developers to focus their attention on DX12. AMD released Mantle as a way of pushing developers towards getting "closer to the metal" or, achieving more access of the GPU itself. DX12 does that, as it removes multiple layers of the API which provides developers with even more access to the horsepower of GPUs.

As for the last bit, do I think NVIDIA could release their own branded PCs? Well, yes and no. We're seeing the company really expand its Shield line of devices, with the Shield Portable, Shield Tablet, and now the new Shield that is really just a kick-ass Tegra X1-powered console.

Secondly, NVIDIA just took the wraps off of the news that GRID will be rendering games in the cloud and pushing them down to gamers in select markets. Would they really need to release their own PC if they could render the game and shoot it down to a $199 console in the future at 4K? Or if you were to purchase a Shield VR headset in the future (which I think will happen this year), and have it rendered in the cloud and blasted down to your HMD?

Sure, NVIDIA could release their own branded PC, but I think we'll see that in the form of a Steam Machine or two, versus a full desktop PC as we know them now.

Hi Mike,

This is a good question, and something that is easy to answer. The AMD FX-8350 isn't a bad CPU by any means, but for graphic/3D design, rendering and video editing, I would sway toward the Intel quite heavily. Even in gaming situations the Intel chip will be superior, but it doesn't make the AMD CPU a bad purchase at all.

Intel's Core i7-4790K is a bloody awesome processor, and something that will do some serious number crunching for you. When you want to jump out of work and into some games, it will handle all of those like the best of them.

As for the GPU, the GeForce GTX 660 will be fine until you buy that GTX 970 or GTX 980.

Hi Rakshit,

To start it off, any of those four video cards will be a great purchase. You will handle any and all games you throw at it, with the three GeForce GTX 970s being able to handle every resolution right up to 4K. As for the GTX 960, even that would handle nearly every game at 1080p or 1440p at 60FPS with some tweaks to the in-game visual settings.

If it were up to me, I'd recommend the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 970 AMP! Extreme Edition. This card handled everything for me right up to 4K without a problem.

As for the 4GB of VRAM issue, I wouldn't worry about it. Sure, it's there, but it won't negatively effect many people. I was playing countless hours of Battlefield 4 at 1080p, 1440p and 4K during my testing with it and never ran into a problem. The only time I did was when I cranked everything up to maximum, including AA, and started flooding over 3.5GB of VRAM. There aren't many games out there that will use 3.5GB+ of VRAM at less than 1440p.

Hopefully we've helped you out here, Rakshit!

Hey there William,

I don't think there's much you can do, as it sounds like there is a serious problem with the cooling set up on the video card. I would suggest a few things:

• Check for dust, or a built up of dust on your heat sink and fan.
• Check to see if the fan is still spinning, especially when it's under load (in a game).
• Swap out the card with another (if you can) and see if the problem is resolved.

With you already checking GPU-Z and noticing that it's hitting 110C, I would suspect there's not much you can do apart from replace the entire video card, or the cooler. For a card like the GeForce GT 430, it would most likely be cheaper to replace the card itself.

Hi Sonya,

If Windows 10 were over a year away, I would recommend waiting. If your current PC was having issues, and/or about to die, I'd recommend purchasing now. But, if your PC is working fine, and you don't have a dire need to rush out and get one, wait it out.

Windows 10 is expected in the second half of the year, so we should start to see Windows 10-powered devices at Computex in June, if not it shouldn't be too much after June that we'll start to see proper Windows 10 products unveiled.

My advice? Wait. Your PC is still working, and Windows 10 should deliver a new experience that Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 skipped over. If your PC dies in the meantime, purchasing a Windows 8.1-powered Ultrabook isn't going to be a bad thing, as you'll get an upgrade to Windows 10 when it comes out, anyway.