Jump to content

Bavor

Patron
  • Content Count

    726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Bavor

  1. I had a chance to test my i7-6700K vs a R7 3800X with Premiere Pro and H.264 encoding. i7-6700K with iGPU 3000 MHz RAM: 14 minutes 59 seconds i7-6700K with iGPU and 3333 MHz RAM: 14 minutes 41 seconds i7-6700K without iGPU: 21 minutes 12 seconds r7 3800X:14 minutes 37 seconds I'm sure other video editing software would scale better across cores, but even after Adobe updating premiere pro to use more CPU cores, the 3800X isn't much faster than an older Intel CPU with iGPU accelerated encoding. Here is the 3800X encoding a h.264 4K video. Premiere does use all cores/threads now, just not all of them at 90-100%.
  2. For the price of the 43" 4K monitor there are several very nice 3440x1440 100Hz to 144 Hz G-sync or FreeSync monitors. You don't need to limit yourself to 2560x1080.
  3. I have an ASUS PG348Q 34" 3440x1440 monitor and love it. My other monitor is a LG 4K monitor and that is off to the right side. I just use it for teamspeak, streaming software, and game map info. I prefer gaming on the ultrawide 3440x1440 34" monitor for most games. It feels more immersive. WoT works fine with the 3440x1440 monitor. Set the FoV to 120 degrees instead of the 95 degrees which is the default for 16:9 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 4K monitors. Overall, I'm happy with the 3440x1440 34" ultrawide and wouldn't go back to a 16:9 monitor. These days, there are very few games that don't work on an ultrawide monitor. I can even get most 10+ year old games to run properly on a 3440x1440 monitor without any special configurations or editing game files.
  4. I think its more of Wargaming giving in to the whiners and crybabies who constantly complain that they can't get reward tanks. So ,to keep them happy, lessen the chance they leave the game soon, and spending money, they offer reward tanks for bonds. In the end, that means many of these players who were never good enough to have a snowball's chance in hell to earn a reward tank, now have to buy gold and credits packages or more premium tanks and premium time to make up for all the credits thy lose playing tier 10 more often. Its the everybody's a winner attitude that people learn in youth soccer(football for those not in the USA) or tee ball where they don't keep score and everyone gets ice cream after the game. Everyone feels that they are entitled to special things they didn't work for. We might as well start handing out Heisman trophies to every former High School football player who didn't have the ability to play college football.
  5. I bought an EVGA graphics card in 2007 and another one in 2012. Both were when EVGA offered free lifetime warranties. The GTX 570 I bought in 2012 developed a noisy fan in 2014 after I moved. It could have just been shaken up too much when it was in the box in the moving trailer. I contacted EVGA's customer service and explained what happened. Then I quickly received an RMA number and they shipped me a new graphics card, a factory overclocked GTX 660 ti, with a return label for my GTX 570. It took about 2 days from the RMA request until I received the new card. In 2017, the 660 ti started to run hotter, probably due to needing a reapplication of thermal paste. I contacted customer service and they issued a RMA and sent me a GXT 1050 ti, which is amazingly faster than the GTX 660 ti, and a return label for the GTX 660 ti. The 1050 ti arrived in about 48 hours from receiving the RMA. Earlier this year, I bought a used GTX 1060 off of eBay for a lower budget system I was building for someone else. The card had some problems with the HDMI port. It made me wonder if that's why the seller was selling it. Instead of sending it back to the seller for a refund, I contacted EVGA and received a RMA for the card and quickly received a replacement GTX 1060. I didn't have the original receipt, but the original owner registered the card within 30 days of purchase. Earlier this month, I had an issue with my EVGA GTX 1080 ti FTW3 Hybrid card. The onboard sensors weren't reporting high temperatures, but the card was acting like it was throttling due to high temperatures. I've run the card at +104 MHz on the GPU(which allowed it to boost to 2101 MHz. Stock GTX 1080 ti boost clock is 1582 MHz.) and +550 MHz(which turns out to be +1100 MHz above rated speed) on the RAM its entire life. During gaming it rarely reached above 50C. I took the card apart and applied new thermal paste. That didn't fix the issue. When I asked on the EVGA forums about it, someone from EVGA gave me a link to their BIOS flashing software and the latest BIOS. Flashing the BIOS didn't fix the issue. I did some more of my own troubleshooting and couldn't figure out what the problem was. I contacted EVGA support and received a RMA for the card. They didn't care that I took the card apart and said the EVGA sticker on the backplate is only to let the repair people know if the card was taken apart. In its place I received a new retail boxed RTX 2080 Hybrid with 48 hours. Between the EVGA cards in my computers and the computers I bought for friends and relatives, I've had somewhere around 30 EVGA graphics cards. Many of them were used or open box returns. The three above are the only ones that had issues. Every time EVGA was quick to replace the card after minimal troubleshooting. My multiple experiences with Gigabyte's warranty/RMA process over the past 15-20 years have been awful. I've completely stopped buying any of their products because I consider the warranty to be useless. I've had issues with Supermicro's server and workstation boards in the past and they replaced everything with no questions asked after very basic troubleshooting, but the process too much longer. I only had to deal with Asus' warranty/RMA process once and it was painless, but slow. Micron/Crucial was slow but painless also. Most hard drive companies have been quick to say they will replace a hard drive under warranty, but the process was slow, except for a few business/enterprise products. In my experience EVGA has been the only company to quickly replace products with equal or better hardware after minimal troubleshooting. I know every PC parts manufacturer has issues with hardware at different times, but I've only been recommending EVGA graphics cards when someone tells me they want a Nvidia GPU in their system. Has anyone else had similar experiences with the warranty/RMA process with other computer hardware manufacturers?
  6. Most of my work with Premiere Pro is H.264 for YouTube and other online video platforms. Honestly, people who use higher quality codecs for YouTube are just wasting time. I tried using higher quality codecs and nobody could tell the difference on YouTube due to YouTube's bandwidth limitations. I brought this post back from the dead because I've looked into upgrading to a Ryzen 3000 series system for a cheap 12 or 16 core system for video editing. However, I've been told by others people who use Premiere Pro regularly that a 9th gen i5 will give me the same encoding speed as a 3800X or 3900X and smoother playback while editing than a 3900X or 3800X. Puget Systems' Premiere Pro benchmark comparison tests seems to support this. Even at 4K H.264 100Mbps, the i5-9600K has a higher export speed and export score than the 3800X and 3900X. The Ryzen systems were benchmarked with faster RAM than the Intel systems. I wonder if Intel's new GPUs will be compatible with Adobe's use of Intel GPUs to speed up encoding and make editing smoother. If so, a 3900X or 3950X and an Intel GPU might be the best of both worlds. I guess we will find out next year when Intel releases their new GPUs. As long as I keep getting the cheap student price for Adobe CC, Adobe's stuff probably will be my main video editing and encoding software.
  7. I've considered NVMe RAID in the past, but every real world benchmark I've seen of it showed no improvement over a single NVMe drive. Even in Premiere Pro and Davinci Resolve there were no improvements to video editing or encoding speed. There weren't any measurable difference in game load times or level load times either. I've experimented with NVMe raid on another person's PC in the past(Four Samsung 970 EVOs) and the benchmarks showed amazing speed. However I couldn't find any real world performance improvements just like all the tech people on YouTube and the other web sites that cover computer hardware. With NVMe drive prices falling, I guess it could be a cheap way to get an 8 TB NVMe drive with some 2TB NVMe drives being found on sale for under $200 now. The 2TB NVMe drives can be found lower priced than 2TB 2.5" SATA SSDs now when they are on sale.
  8. Yet it never uses more than 50% of the CPU and never maxes out any core when ray traced shadows are enabled and usually uses 20-40% of the CPU's ability. So, it isn't a limit of the CPU causing poor performance.
  9. Apparently the Ryzen 3000 series CPUs have a bug in the random number generator that makes them unable to boot most linux distros without a workaround. It also causes some issues in Windows software. The bug is that when a random number is requested form the CPU, the result is always zero. Because of this every Linux session ID has the same ID number instead of it being a random number. Because of this Linux won't boot because it keeps requesting a new random number from the CPU and it keeps getting zero as the random number. Supposedly AMD and the motherboard manufacturers may have a patch in 2 to 8 weeks. How does a CPU company release a CPU with a broken random number generator? Is that not tested before it goes to final silicon? It seems like a huge flaw. If Intel did that, it would be all over the news.
  10. When Wargaming said they are introducing ray traced shadows that work on any graphics card, I was skeptical about how it would work. In the video, they showed the highest level of ray traced shadows most of the time. I did some tests with WoT Encore RT to test performance with ray traced shadows on the highest setting and off. I used MSI afterburner to measure average fps, minimum FPS, 1% low FPS, and 01.% low FPS during the WoT Encore RT demo. I tested resolutions from 1920x1080 to 4K(3840x2160). Using an i7 and GTX 1080 ti, the difference in performance with ray tracing on at the highest level and ray tracing off was 40-65% depending on the resolution. Yes, up to 65% lower FPS to have ray traced shadows enabled. I tried with an RTX 2080 and i7 system and the difference was almost 60% at 1920x1080 resolution between RT on and RT off. That's a major performance hit for slightly nicer shadows. I monitored CPU usage when running the demo and it was at 20-45% total CPU usage on the i7 and no cores were maxed out. So, its obvious that the implementation of ray tracing they are using is very inefficient even after their improvements in how it works. I honestly wouldn't notice the difference in quality of shadows most of the time when playing the game. Also, Wargaming needs to stop lying to their customers about their WoT Encore results. On systems that get 20-25 FPS Encore is still telling them that their results are "Good." I don't know of any gamer that would be happy with most games at 20-25 FPS. In WoT tanks start jumping around your screen at that low of a framerate.
  11. I gave Wargaming that feedback and posted about it in the forums. Having the price be 15,000 bonds for a reward tanks is ridiculously low. Last campaign, the winning bids in the bond auction were over 18,000 bonds on the NA server. I heard it was 22,000 or 24,000 minimum on the EU server, and over 30,000 bonds to win a tank in the auction on the RU server. The low price is a slap in the face by Wargaming to the players who improved their individual and team gameplay and worked to earn a tank. Selling tier 10 reward tanks gives players less motivation to grind for tier 10 tanks and less motivation to participate in clan wars. When you have that situation, players can stop spending money on gold to convert free XP and stop spending money on premium time and premium tanks. Then Wargaming makes less money and the game dies faster. The NA and SEA servers seem to have been in a decline in active players and clan wars players for a while now. I'm sure selling reward tanks will speed it up. Also, its another example of Wargaming lying to players when they said in their videos and clan wars campaign announcements in the past that you can only get the reward tanks in clan wars campaigns. I'm pretty sure its mostly marketing and finance that controls all of Wargaming's decisions and they don't care if the game dies faster on some servers as long as they get short term money.
  12. I asked Wargaming support what passive play means and I received this response. "Excessive and repetitive passive play means that the system caught the player doing AFK on every game or the repeated act of playing passive in the game." It appears these players are violating the rules and Wargaming doesn't ban them even after reports with replays to Wargaming support. I guess its true what others said, Wargaming doesn't ban them as long as they remain paying customers. Look at stickygreen0 for example. https://wotlabs.net/na/player/stickygreen0 He has been banned multiple times and had his account reset for botting and intentionally playing like a bot, yet he comes back after every ban and never receives a permanent ban. It appears that when he actually tries to play with some efforts he gets green and blue WN8 stats. Yet, most of the time he suicides at the start ot camps the red line. I asked Wargaming support and received a response. So now I do have an idea what it means. I was correct in my interpretation. It does mean a person not participating and playing passively. Also they said I can submit tickets about those people intentionally not participating in battle.
  13. Actually in that case it is the same as being a bot according to Wargaming's own rules. Did you read the part that said, "any other similar methods to accumulate credits and experience without the participation or with passive participation of the player within the battle (excessive and repetitive passive play" and interpret it differently. They aren't being a bad player, they are the equivalent of a bot. I was using that player as an example of one of the many with similar behaviors I encounter in the game. There is a difference between using a player's behavior as an example and asking why Wargaming doesn't ban players like that and straight up complaining about one particular player. The best answer I was able to get out of Wargaming support in the past was rather vague, but I think the support person had no idea what it meant either and didn't bother to ask anyone before giving me a copy and paste response and closing the ticket. However, if you read the rule it seems to specifically describe the type of behavior I mentioned in the first post using that player as an example of one of the many I've encountered.
  14. According to the WoT rules, botting or excessive passive play is forbidden. 4.07. Using bots, clickers, macros, keyboard and mouse recorders, or any other similar methods to accumulate credits and experience without the participation or with passive participation of the player within the battle (excessive and repetitive passive play). So why don't they ban the players who say they aren't going to participate because of matchmaking and then camp the red line? Banning bots is fine, but banning players who behave like passive bots isn't fine by Wargaming? Obviously you didn't read the original post. I was asking why players are continued to be allowed to exhibit that behavior and not be banned after multiple reports since its against the game rules. I got banned once for using a 100% completely legal mod when I submitted a ticket because support didn't know what mods were legal. Lucky I was told by several high ranking people at Wargaming NA that the mod was legal and still had the forum posts to prove it. The ban was reversed and removed from my record. Its entirely possible that people could get false positives or be banned by mistake.
  15. If I had the ability to ban all maps that were two corridors with a death zone in the middle, there wouldn''t be many maps left to play.
  16. There is a difference between playing bad and camping the red line in a bush refusing to participate or even shoot until the entire team is dead. Playing bad is just playing bad. Hiding int he rear and not participating is the same as botting. In the EULA use to be a section that said passive play is not allowed. The example support gave was a player joining the battle, driving somewhere, then going AFK. That's basically the same think these players who refuse to participate unless they are top tier are doing.
  17. That still shouldn't be a reason to let him ruin the game for everyone else. Players like that make other players enjoy the game less. They are effectively bots or worse than bots and if botting is against the EULA. Bot accounts with premiums get banned after 3 violations. Including some of the notorious bot accounts with a ton of premiums. Why aren't players like that banned after 3 tickets submitted?
  18. Every single time the player named Cantshootstraight is on my team and he isn't top tier, he bitches about matchmaker, drives to the red line behind cap and parks in a bush. I've submitted tickets to support about him and other players like him and all I got in replay was something like, "There are many different play styles in World of Tanks. While not all are the same as yours, you have to understand that some players play the game differently than others." or something similar to that bullshit. https://wotlabs.net/na/player/Cantshootstraight Why does Wargaming allow players who are the equivalent of bots to continue to play when it makes the game worse for everyone?
  19. Sandbox changes are focusing on the symptom, not the problem. I think the rework of the ammo is fixing a symptom of the problem instead of the cause of the problem. What Wargaming is doing by changing special/gold ammo is the equivalent of shoving gauze up the nose of someone who is bleeding and dying out from a hemorrhagic disease. The issue isn't gold/premium/special rounds. The issue is map design, lack of real weak spots on many tanks, and RNG. Wargaming loves corridor maps that make players fight frontally. How many of their maps are two corridors that promote frontal engagements with an area in between that is a death zone for most tanks? How many tanks/TDs have little to no frontal weak spots? How many of them have weak spots that can be easily penetrated by standard ammo of the lower tier tanks they face? How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have RNG send the shot too low or too high or too far too the side several times in a row? How many times in a row have you fully aimed a shot at the weak spot of a stationary tank and have a low penetration RNG roll that caused the shot to bounce off a weak spot. Before attempting any changes to ammo, they need to fix the other areas first. Wargaming is fixing the symptom, not the problem. Personally, I think Wargaming should change RNG to +/- 15% for damage and penetration. WoT Blitz has 15% RNG if I remember correctly from playing it before. In addition to that, many maps need some rework to allow more flanking opportunities. With the current design of most maps your flanking choices are to go to another corridor to fight tanks frontally just as you were before, or crossing into an open area where most players get spotted easily and die quickly. Tanks also need weak spots that can actually be hit and penetrated by lower tier tanks. I'm not saying every tank needs large weak spots that every tank 2 tiers lower can easily hit and pen at 200+ meters. However, the weak spots of many higher tier tanks are small enough that when you are less than 100 meters away, your aim circle is 2 to 4 times the area of the weak spot. Regularly having fully aimed shots at a tank's weak spots miss at under 100 meters because the weak spots are so small they can't easily be hit is a problem. Skill in learning weak spots and aiming for them is negated by RNG in many circumstances. It also works the other way. There are tanks that have been relegated to being useless after nerfs or changes because their weak spots are so large and easy to hit. The T110E5 is one example of this. Before touching gold/special ammo, Wargaming should look at the other major issues with the game with map design, armor, and RNG. The changes on sandbox are an over complicated way of fixing a symptom of the real problems.
  20. I noticed with Wargaming's map design there are several maps I don't like and they all have a similar configuration. Death zone in the middle and two corridors for frontal fighting.
  21. I blocked mines because that tiny map is awful in high tiers. Everything gets almost permalit unless you are in the rear. I forget what other map I blocked. It might be one of the city maps.
  22. People claim this game isn't dying, yet I tried to play several different tier 10 tanks just before 9 PM on a Friday night and they all timed out while waiting 5 minutes for a battle.  Where the fuck are all the higher tier players?

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Tarski

      Tarski

      I can't be sure, but matchmaking problems > player base size problems, as far as I can tell. Remember when Frontlines dropped this month and everyone was timing out even when the queue displayed that thousands of people were trying to get in? 

    3. j_galt

      j_galt

      I just bail after 90 seconds and try again.  Often I then get a match in a minute or less.  It has always felt like some issue with the matchmaker rather than a lack of players. 

    4. Bavor

      Bavor

      That day I was on the NA server not the SA server.  I even double checked.

  23. I found the tier 8 VK to be very good in pub battles. The armor works extremely well and the gun isn't awful, but you need APCR against many of the tier 10s. It only took me 89 battles and I played it entire solo in pub battles with a 63% win rate.
  24. Wot has been multithreaded since 9.14. 9.14 The sound engine was split off to its own thread. 9.15 The Sound, Graphics, and Game engines have their own threads. AMD CPUs, especially the older FX 6 and 8 core CPUs got a huge boost in performance. 1.0 The game used at least 4 threads if you have at least 4 cores or 2 cores with hyperthreading. 1.4 the graphics engine uses more than one thread and the rest of the multithreading was improved further.
×
×
  • Create New...