Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 4 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101
  1. #76
    Dedicated Member
    Arimax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    PSN ID
    Netherlord
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,066
    Rep Power
    65
    Points
    3,903 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Don't get me wrong, i agree that if you want the best you are going to have to update every few years. But if you buy the best you can buy at the time you buy it, then the whole "oh but you need to upgrade every year to experience the best graphics" is nothing but a lie.

    Most people play at 1080p which is hardly a demanding resolution, to suggest you need a new card all the time to play at the resolution is laughable at best. Now if you said you wanted to play at 2560x1440 with all the settings on high, high quality shadows with AA and AF then yeah, you'll need to upgrade to a faster card with a decent amount of memory.

    I understand that this is a console forum but there are just so many misconceptions about PC gaming that when you read them, as a PC gamer, you'd want to pull your hair out. The way I see it, if you are genuinely concerned with graphics and frame rate be a PC gamer. You get spoiled rotten. If you aren't really fussed all that much about visuals or framerate then play on console. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. What i really suggest is get both and have the best possible experience every time. PC for multiplatform titles, Consoles for exclusives.
    All I can say is completely agreed play DMC 5 I'm not going act like a PC expert, but even this $600 laptop ran it fairly nice it didn't look like it's PS3 counterpart that's for sure, and heck played Dishonored same result.

    Even my own friends have been telling me you buy a PC that cost you a good penny it's going to last for a long time without upgrading. If I can play my games between 30-60 FPS I'm good, and this laptop which has laughable specs by most people standards like I said still plays these games fairly well.

  2. #77
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Don't get me wrong, i agree that if you want the best you are going to have to update every few years. But if you buy the best you can buy at the time you buy it, then the whole "oh but you need to upgrade every year to experience the best graphics" is nothing but a lie.
    honestly for me, the best approach is to go medium and replace the whole thing every 2-3 years. I don't care for the extra stuff and this is probably the cheapest strategy. you can always sell the PC to make returns. but that's just me.
    Most people play at 1080p which is hardly a demanding resolution, to suggest you need a new card all the time to play at the resolution is laughable at best. Now if you said you wanted to play at 2560x1440 with all the settings on high, high quality shadows with AA and AF then yeah, you'll need to upgrade to a faster card with a decent amount of memory.
    Who doesn't understand this though?
    I understand that this is a console forum but there are just so many misconceptions about PC gaming that when you read them, as a PC gamer, you'd want to pull your hair out. The way I see it, if you are genuinely concerned with graphics and frame rate be a PC gamer. You get spoiled rotten. If you aren't really fussed all that much about visuals or framerate then play on console. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. What i really suggest is get both and have the best possible experience every time. PC for multiplatform titles, Consoles for exclusives.
    yea, that's true but i think that's changing next-gen and will continue to change. gone are the days of horrible frame rate and low resolution. 1080p is still not good enough for big screens but it's getting there.
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    It doesn't matter if you own a thousand PC's. The one that can 'play' Dota at 22fps isn't playing it at all. Maybe you and I have different opinions on what is playable but 22fps certainly isn't. Especially not in a game like that.
    You've misunderstood. My point was to show that Bioshock 3 is not taxing on your GPU if my $#@!ty mobile GPU can deliver 22fps. i did not say that i was going to play at that frame rate or that it's playable.
    No. My PC didn't have newer tech than 2009.
    well it's been a while, i think you're right. it was probably 2009 but i think it was late 2009. that is, assuming that you bought the stuff at launch.
    So Tomb Raider, a 2013 title isn't a current game? Lol give it a rest man.
    did i say it wasn't?
    Have you played that game on PC? Let me answer that for you. No. If you had of played it and seen it running on Max settings then you wouldn't be saying it's an easy game to run. One of the best looking games of the year. TressFX alone is very resource heavy.
    this is the funny thing. yes, you can run this, awesome but this was practically built for your card so you got away with it. TR actually came out later than both crysis 3 and far cry 3. the problem is that for games such as TR with recommended requirements either close to your card or less, are going to be easy to run. but then games like the other two, your PC is too old. you have to upgrade.
    Sorry I didn't buy FC3 in time for me to test it on my old machine. Regardless, it would've ran it with ease.
    I don't think so. look at the recommended specs, better yet look at the benchmarks, youtube videos, you would've been sitting somewhere in the middle and you still wouldn't get 60fps at 1080p. you would have to turn some stuff off.
    Yes, Witcher 2 came out in 2011. Again, have you tried to run that game before? Even my friends 690 still finds that game hard to run with Ubersampling. Just because it has low minimum specs doesn't mean that the game is easy to run. What that means is that it scales down well down to low hardware.
    yes, but i'm not speaking about the minimum requirements, I'm speaking about the recommended spec requirement. especially on pc, there will be times that a feature or two will make the game chug very slow, i've seen this happen. it's just because the feature wasn't optimized correctly or the feature is there too early and not well supported by the cards, such as power.

    even then i'd love to see a pic with proof that you were running it at 1080p and 60fps because i'm seeing 580s barely making the cut.
    What next, Crysis came out in 2006, i bet that suddenly doesn't count for a game that is hard to run
    that game was just not properly coded.
    I do respect you Sufi but when it comes to PC gaming it seems as if you just make things up most of the time.
    trust me, i do not. i have enough knowledge of the basics to understand it enough. speaking of making things up, i'm still waiting for that Witcher 2 proof, not today, but someday perhaps?
    Suddenly BF3, a game STILL being used in Benchmarks due to it's DX11 effects is no longer a valid benchmark game because it came out in 2011
    i don't know what this proves. an older game can be used for several reasons, do not forget that one of the reasons is marketing or popularity or it could be that they want to show mid-range cards running a game more suitable for their power range.
    The last part of my post was aimed at anyone who thinks you need to upgrade annually to experience the best. If you are buying something like a GTX760 then of course you will need to upgrade sooner. But if you buy a top end card it will last you for ages.
    I don't personally agree with the top end strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arimax View Post
    All I can say is completely agreed play DMC 5 I'm not going act like a PC expert, but even this $600 laptop ran it fairly nice it didn't look like it's PS3 counterpart that's for sure, and heck played Dishonored same result.

    Even my own friends have been telling me you buy a PC that cost you a good penny it's going to last for a long time without upgrading. If I can play my games between 30-60 FPS I'm good, and this laptop which has laughable specs by most people standards like I said still plays these games fairly well.
    what laptop do you have?

  3. #78
    Forum Sage
    MjW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    PSN ID
    MjW-
    Age
    33
    Posts
    7,541
    Rep Power
    99
    Points
    8,132 (44,164 Banked)
    Items VitaiPhone BlackGran Turismo 5PS3 FatTommy Vercetti3DS
    And the award for the post with the most quotes goes... lol

    Sent from Windows Phone using Tapatalk
    ~Corporate Media Propaganda - Welcome to your Daily Matrix~

    .

  4. Likes Omar likes this post
  5. #79
    Veteran
    Saigon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NA
    PSN ID
    saigon1914
    Posts
    4,977
    Rep Power
    79
    Points
    33,954 (0 Banked)
    I do not know if it is me or not, but why does it seem like they are mad because they are not included within this generation of consoles. Its not like Sony did not go to them, so why it seems, at least to me, that they are on the defenses. I say this because regardless how well these consoles sell, the PC enthusiast will always upgrade their GPU to the best available, especially if they are fans of Nvidia.

  6. #80
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MjW View Post
    And the award for the post with the most quotes goes... lol

    Sent from Windows Phone using Tapatalk
    pfft, i'm on a 22" screen, i have no issues lol.

  7. #81
    Dedicated Member
    victorijapoosp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,297
    Rep Power
    48
    Points
    14,447 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
    I do not know if it is me or not, but why does it seem like they are mad because they are not included within this generation of consoles. Its not like Sony did not go to them, so why it seems, at least to me, that they are on the defenses. I say this because regardless how well these consoles sell, the PC enthusiast will always upgrade their GPU to the best available, especially if they are fans of Nvidia.
    Because Sony/Cerny probably spoke to them directly 3 or 4 years ago and decided he didn't believe their new BS claims after the RSX fiasco, and told JenHsun to $#@! off.
    Maths is biased! It keeps telling me the PS4 is 50% more powerful than XboxOne!
    Great song, should have more views :'(

    SHIMAASAAAANIIII!!!!!
    http://i.imgur.com/bP50xuM.png

  8. #82
    Elite Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    25
    Posts
    10,517
    Rep Power
    93
    Points
    52,869 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    honestly for me, the best approach is to go medium and replace the whole thing every 2-3 years. I don't care for the extra stuff and this is probably the cheapest strategy. you can always sell the PC to make returns. but that's just me.
    Personally, I opt for the high end things.

    Who doesn't understand this though?
    People who keep spouting you need a GPU every 3 weeks.

    yea, that's true but i think that's changing next-gen and will continue to change. gone are the days of horrible frame rate and low resolution. 1080p is still not good enough for big screens but it's getting there.
    You've misunderstood. My point was to show that Bioshock 3 is not taxing on your GPU if my $#@!ty mobile GPU can deliver 22fps. i did not say that i was going to play at that frame rate or that it's playable.
    Just because a mobile GPU can get 22 frames, with all the settings down to low, doesn't really prove a point. i wouldn't be surprised if you could run it from integrated graphics. that doesn't mean it CAN'T be taxing when running at higher resolutions (i don't know what screen your laptop has) or with other settings that won't be enabled when your running low.

    well it's been a while, i think you're right. it was probably 2009 but i think it was late 2009. that is, assuming that you bought the stuff at launch.
    I bought my PC just after my 20th Birthday. December 09.

    did i say it wasn't?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    conveniently skip all the games of today...that doesn't prove your point.


    this is the funny thing. yes, you can run this, awesome but this was practically built for your card so you got away with it. TR actually came out later than both crysis 3 and far cry 3. the problem is that for games such as TR with recommended requirements either close to your card or less, are going to be easy to run. but then games like the other two, your PC is too old. you have to upgrade.
    Too old to play them on Ultra settings, maybe. Still have enough to run it on high though. Especially if turn down a few of the settings that don't make a big difference but impact performance in a big way.

    I don't think so. look at the recommended specs, better yet look at the benchmarks, youtube videos, you would've been sitting somewhere in the middle and you still wouldn't get 60fps at 1080p. you would have to turn some stuff off.
    Recommended GPU for FC3 = HD4850.
    Hi-Performance Recommended GPU for FC3 = HD6770

    http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=883&game=Far%20Cry%203"]Source[/url]
    Now compare those two cards together, which is the better card? 5870 vs 6770 That is just the reference design. I had two of the Factory Overclocked cards which were between 5%-10% faster than the reference card.

    Now i'm not saying it will run it flawlessly, i expect it to drop when things got tense but turn down a few of settings ( 4xAA, Normal Shadows etc) and you'll be able to get a very playable experience on high.

    yes, but i'm not speaking about the minimum requirements, I'm speaking about the recommended spec requirement. especially on pc, there will be times that a feature or two will make the game chug very slow, i've seen this happen. it's just because the feature wasn't optimized correctly or the feature is there too early and not well supported by the cards, such as power

    even then i'd love to see a pic with proof that you were running it at 1080p and 60fps because i'm seeing 580s barely making the cut.
    If you think i'm going to go through the hassle of getting my old PC back from my friend, download the Witcher again just to prove to you I was able to get 60fps out of the game you've got another thing coming. You keep forgetting. I wasn't running ONE 5870. I had 2. They were in Crossfire. 2 5870's are a bit better than 1 580. I bought this game just as i bought my 120Hz monitor. IIRC I was actually getting a very decent framerate, once the catalyst drivers had been released.

    that game was just not properly coded.
    trust me, i do not. i have enough knowledge of the basics to understand it enough. speaking of making things up, i'm still waiting for that Witcher 2 proof, not today, but someday perhaps?
    See above. I'm not going through the effort of getting back my old build and downloading the entire game again just to prove a point to you. I put over 20 hours into the game, i think I would know how well it ran.

    i don't know what this proves. an older game can be used for several reasons, do not forget that one of the reasons is marketing or popularity or it could be that they want to show mid-range cards running a game more suitable for their power range.
    I don't personally agree with the top end strategy.
    So BF3 is being benchmarked because of the demanding DX11 features or that fact that 64 player multiplayer is difficult to run. Nope. Must be because of marketing. I'm done
    Last edited by BBK..; 09-27-2013 at 11:07.

  9. #83
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BBK.. View Post
    Now compare those two cards together, which is the better card? 5870 vs 6770 That is just the reference design. I had two of the Factory Overclocked cards which were between 5%-10% faster than the reference card.

    Now i'm not saying it will run it flawlessly, i expect it to drop when things got tense but turn down a few of settings ( 4xAA, Normal Shadows etc) and you'll be able to get a very playable experience on high.


    If you think i'm going to go through the hassle of getting my old PC back from my friend, download the Witcher again just to prove to you I was able to get 60fps out of the game you've got another thing coming. You keep forgetting. I wasn't running ONE 5870. I had 2. They were in Crossfire. 2 5870's are a bit better than 1 580. I bought this game just as i bought my 120Hz monitor. IIRC I was actually getting a very decent framerate, once the catalyst drivers had been released.
    you know, that doesn't help you cause if you're going to say that you had the extreme OC versions and had two of them. that makes the entire claim that you are able to survive with a GPU every 3 years worse. because you're telling us that you need 2 of the highest-end OCed-to-the-neck GPUs and then you might barely run something on high 3 years down the road.

    maybe you can run these games pretty well but then you're using two of these GPUs. that's not fair in an argument such as this.
    So BF3 is being benchmarked because of the demanding DX11 features or that fact that 64 player multiplayer is difficult to run. Nope. Must be because of marketing. I'm done
    no i said it's part of it. it can also be that because BF3 is popular (again, that's a marketable reason). they don't always need to benchmark a game that is taxing. in fact, i feel that it'd be stupid to do that unless it's just that popular.

    tell me, do they normally test out BF3 with 64 players online and all the chaos? I highly doubt that.

  10. #84
    Newbie
    Kevlor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Okanagan BC
    Posts
    40
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    841 (0 Banked)

    Ps4 Power supply and graphics performance

    After reading some clouded comments by Nvidia equating power supply size to GPU max performance I have been searching the net and forums to no avail for the actual wattage of the Ps4 power supply.. Could someone help me out?. Thanks.

  11. #85
    Apprentice
    Treghc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Age
    27
    Posts
    220
    Rep Power
    61
    Points
    515 (0 Banked)
    Short answer:

    It doesn't matter.

  12. #86
    Veteran
    MonkeyClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    PSN ID
    Tha_MonkeyClaw
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,976
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    155,775 (0 Banked)
    Items Protect yourself

    -=[ PSN ID: Tha_MonkeyClaw ]=-

  13. #87
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    129
    Points
    66,528 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Well there is a relationship between the two. High end cards can use up to and over 300W on their own.

  14. #88
    Elite Guru
    TAZ427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    PSN ID
    TAZ427
    Age
    44
    Posts
    5,293
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    51,186 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Well there is a relationship between the two. High end cards can use up to and over 300W on their own.
    This is true, but with clocking speed the power will go up exponentially (both because of clocking rate and increase in bias voltage.)

    It also decreases w/ process node (though leakage current portion doesn't drop as much these days and is a major reason we're seeing the power consumption grow.)

    This also doesn't take into effect that PC games aren't optimized across all graphics cards and they utilization is in general dismal because the PC game devs can't focus in on all the varieties and capabilities of everyones cards. Steam has helped to improve some of this, but it falls way behind compared to optimize for a known entity such as a Game console.

    All that said, based on the PS3 using a C7 power cord instead of the C6 (PC Style meant for larger currents) and past history of them using C6 on the Phat and switching to C7 on the Slim, and the power of original slim was in the 160W range while the Phat was 200W range. I'd hazard to guess it's below 200W and probably somewhere in the 150-170W range. That's simply a swag based on observations. Please note that C7 power cord could handle the current for 200W device, but most manufactures tend to use a cord w/ earth contact for anything > 200W (i.e. they'd use a C6 instead of a C7.)



  15. Likes Omar likes this post
  16. #89
    Newbie

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    33
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    599 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevlor View Post
    After reading some clouded comments by Nvidia equating power supply size to GPU max performance I have been searching the net and forums to no avail for the actual wattage of the Ps4 power supply.. Could someone help me out?. Thanks.
    They have a point , if the power supply is too small the hardware will suffer if a GPU cant draw enough power it will throttle down affecting perfprmance. A high end high power pc with a cheap PSU will suffer. That said if the current psu is adequate putting a bigger one in will have no effect on performance at all , i would assume Sony have put in a more than adequate PSU

  17. #90
    Veteran
    MonkeyClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    PSN ID
    Tha_MonkeyClaw
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,976
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    155,775 (0 Banked)
    Items Protect yourself
    According to the label from the FCC it rates the PS4 as 2.1A at 120V, which is 252 watts.


    -=[ PSN ID: Tha_MonkeyClaw ]=-

  18. #91
    Newbie
    Kevlor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Okanagan BC
    Posts
    40
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    841 (0 Banked)
    thanks.

  19. #92
    Elite Guru
    TAZ427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    PSN ID
    TAZ427
    Age
    44
    Posts
    5,293
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    51,186 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyClaw View Post
    According to the label from the FCC it rates the PS4 as 2.1A at 120V, which is 252 watts.

    That would just be the power supply rating. BTW that says 2.5A so I'll take it as 300VA or 212W for 120V.

    IIRC the PS3's was 3A (360VA -> 254W - gotta RMS) and in reality it was only ~200W power consumption.

    EDIT: Looked it up it had a 3.2A / 380VA (269W) initial power supply rating on the Phat but as we all know it consumed around 200W.
    Last edited by TAZ427; 09-27-2013 at 21:36.



  20. #93
    Ultimate Veteran
    Lefein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    34
    Posts
    23,056
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    112,222 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Well there is a relationship between the two. High end cards can use up to and over 300W on their own.
    So, the question becomes, how much power does a disc drive and USB hub use? Because, architecturally speaking, the PS4 is essentially a graphics card with an APU in place of a GPU.

  21. #94
    Veteran
    MonkeyClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    PSN ID
    Tha_MonkeyClaw
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,976
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    155,775 (0 Banked)
    Items Protect yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ427 View Post
    That would just be the power supply rating. BTW that says 2.5A so I'll take it as 300VA or 212W for 120V.

    IIRC the PS3's was 3A (360VA -> 254W - gotta RMS) and in reality it was only ~200W power consumption.

    EDIT: Looked it up it had a 3.2A / 380VA (269W) initial power supply rating on the Phat but as we all know it consumed around 200W.
    The test kit is rated at 1.15A-2.5A, the actual PS4 console is showing 2.1A, which I know is just the power supply rating which it will never use that much. I bet when the console comes out and you put it on a Kill-a-watt you will probably see it hovering around the 100 watt mark.
    Last edited by MonkeyClaw; 09-27-2013 at 22:07.

    -=[ PSN ID: Tha_MonkeyClaw ]=-

  22. #95
    Dedicated Member
    Demi_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Icy hot of the north
    PSN ID
    Kamikaze_Krunch
    Posts
    1,426
    Rep Power
    19
    Points
    7,913 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Sufi, It's Nvidia. They always have their mouths on the crack pipe and have been smoking rocks since 2005.

  23. #96
    Elite Guru
    TAZ427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    PSN ID
    TAZ427
    Age
    44
    Posts
    5,293
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    51,186 (0 Banked)
    Ok, Given 2.1A -> 252VA or 178W (at 120V), I'd update my guess to be ~125W



  24. #97
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ427 View Post
    Ok, Given 2.1A -> 252VA or 178W (at 120V), I'd update my guess to be ~125W
    *crosses fingers*

  25. #98
    Elite Guru
    TAZ427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    PSN ID
    TAZ427
    Age
    44
    Posts
    5,293
    Rep Power
    77
    Points
    51,186 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    *crosses fingers*
    I'm happy with anything under 200W. Right now my 64" Plasma sucks down ~400W, My Receiver ~100, My two TiVo HD boxes 50W together (surprisingly low, but it's also the only thing on 24/7) and my Slim is around ~85W.

    Go above that and my UPS will start beeping at me - Frigging 1300VA listed, but read the fine print and it's only to support up to 780W (which is 1103VA) then the damn thing will start beeping. Found that out when leaving my HTPC processing videos while I was trying to play the PS3.



  26. #99
    Forum Overseer

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    32,688
    Rep Power
    198
    Points
    136,638 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ427 View Post
    I'm happy with anything under 200W. Right now my 64" Plasma sucks down ~400W, My Receiver ~100, My two TiVo HD boxes 50W together (surprisingly low, but it's also the only thing on 24/7) and my Slim is around ~85W.

    Go above that and my UPS will start beeping at me - Frigging 1300VA listed, but read the fine print and it's only to support up to 780W (which is 1103VA) then the damn thing will start beeping. Found that out when leaving my HTPC processing videos while I was trying to play the PS3.
    lol that's a lot of watts. is UPS really worth it? off-topic. because i have never had any issues otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Demi_God View Post
    Sufi, It's Nvidia. They always have their mouths on the crack pipe and have been smoking rocks since 2005.
    i have not followed either GPU companies at all but this was just stupid. i can't believe his argument was the PSU, he doesn't understand the first thing about consoles.

  27. #100
    Veteran
    MonkeyClaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    PSN ID
    Tha_MonkeyClaw
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,976
    Rep Power
    97
    Points
    155,775 (0 Banked)
    Items Protect yourself
    Quote Originally Posted by TAZ427 View Post
    I'm happy with anything under 200W. Right now my 64" Plasma sucks down ~400W, My Receiver ~100, My two TiVo HD boxes 50W together (surprisingly low, but it's also the only thing on 24/7) and my Slim is around ~85W.

    Go above that and my UPS will start beeping at me - Frigging 1300VA listed, but read the fine print and it's only to support up to 780W (which is 1103VA) then the damn thing will start beeping. Found that out when leaving my HTPC processing videos while I was trying to play the PS3.
    I have a floating entertainment center that has a small area behind it for organizing cords, etc. and I also have a UPS stored back there as well, it is around the same capacity as yours, but because of the space behind it this was the largest I could go. With everything on I am at 80% capacity so I am kinda of nervous on what the PS4 power usage will actually be since I don't want mine constantly beeping at me as well. I have plans to upgrade the TV to a newer 80" Sharp LED which actually uses less power than my current 55" Samsung LED so that should free up a little of the load, but I don't want to get too close to maxing out the UPS. Below is a pic, sorry it is a crappy pic, it was about 11pm and I had just finished installing stuff and cleaning up the mess.


    -=[ PSN ID: Tha_MonkeyClaw ]=-

  28. Likes victorijapoosp likes this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.