Recommended Posts

I currently have an Intel I 5, 3.2 GHz. 

Radeon RX 560 graphics card.

16Gb RAM, pretty up-to-date motherboard and an M2 very quick Samsung hard drive.

 

I share the rest because it gives you the complete picture.  I don't need an SSD drive or more RAM.

 

I run an ultrawide monitor 3440×1440.

 

My main work is Photoshop, Premier, going live (so OBS, converting and combining multiple sources and streaming).

 

I want to spend around $250 on a new graphics card because the whole of windows redrawing and encoding is really sluggish. 

 

I used to have AMD Asus HD  6950 (still sat on the side) and sometimes I'm wondering whether I have gone backwards going to the RX 560?

 

The questions:

 

1. Have I gone backwards?

2. Happy to move to Nvidia what should I get from my requirements?

 

Thank you for your advice, it's always awesome to come back and pick the wise brains of Nbeoiwin.

We need to know a little more before we can help you...

 

i5 ####?

Radeon RX560 GDDRAM?

16GB RAM, Speed? Company? Latency?

motherboard company? socket?

What M.2? Company? Space? NVME, at all?

"Fast" Samsung HDD, Size? RPM? SATAI/II/III?

Ultrawide monitor, what size? 27? Company? Refresh Time?

 

Also, what is your PSU? Company? Wattage? Model name (CS###, MS###)

 

Once we know all this, we can help choose what is best for your configuration.

As well as the specs Mindovermaster asked for, it may be possible you have the nerfed version of the 560. Last summer AMD released a cut down 14CU version from the original, launch 16CU version without detailing or advertising the change. Which card do you own?

 

Either way I believe both will be better than your old 6950, but it may explain why you don't see much of an improvement. Also remember that Photoshop is not specifically a GPU intensive app, although some features require a GPU / CUDA. The processor, RAM and storage will be far more beneficial for most tasks in the app over GPU.

 

The Nvidia 1050 is technically better than your 560, but it's in the same budget GPU bracket and won't change things significantly to warrant switching. Never mind that right now cryto-mining is pushing GPU prices very high and would probably cost more to switch regardless.

24 minutes ago, Andrew said:

As well as the specs Mindovermaster asked for, it may be possible you have the nerfed version of the 560. Last summer AMD released a cut down 14CU version from the original, launch 16CU version without detailing or advertising the change. Which card do you own?

 

Either way I believe both will be better than your old 6950, but it may explain why you don't see much of an improvement. Also remember that Photoshop is not specifically a GPU intensive app, although some features require a GPU / CUDA. The processor, RAM and storage will be far more beneficial for most tasks in the app over GPU.

 

The Nvidia 1050 is technically better than your 560, but it's in the same budget GPU bracket and won't change things significantly to warrant switching. Never mind that right now cryto-mining is pushing GPU prices very high and would probably cost more to switch regardless.

I thought crypto-maniacs were going after 1070/1080, not the 1050/1060. No?

Just now, Mindovermaster said:

I thought crypto-maniacs were going after 1070/1080, not the 1050/1060. No?

Generally yes the higher cards are the ones sought after, but the scarcity and inflation of prices has lead to even 900 series cards being sucked up and used. If you have an old card sitting around, it's actually a good time to earn more back than you would this time last year.

1 minute ago, Andrew said:

Generally yes the higher cards are the ones sought after, but the scarcity and inflation of prices has lead to even 900 series cards being sucked up and used. If you have an old card sitting around, it's actually a good time to earn more back than you would this time last year.

Truth... :D

1 hour ago, Mindovermaster said:

We need to know a little more before we can help you...

 

i5 ####?

Radeon RX560 GDDRAM?

16GB RAM, Speed? Company? Latency?

motherboard company? socket?

What M.2? Company? Space? NVME, at all?

"Fast" Samsung HDD, Size? RPM? SATAI/II/III?

Ultrawide monitor, what size? 27? Company? Refresh Time?

 

Also, what is your PSU? Company? Wattage? Model name (CS###, MS###)

 

Once we know all this, we can help choose what is best for your configuration.

The hard drives and the RAM is fine, main drive 950 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD with Western Digital Red 2x 3tb raid 0. It's a 1200watt power supply cannot remember now whether it's Corsair but it's a good one.  The motherboard is Asus, less than 12 months old with the latest 16 GB RAM at the time.

 

My system is not lagging memory or writing to the hard drive when it is crunching videos. 

 

The monitor is LG 34 inch curved running at 50 Hz, for some reason I cannot get any higher.

 

Hope this helps.

 

The bottleneck is either the CPU or the graphics card.

 

Perhaps, I should have put a little background.  I used to own a computer shop, been repairing computers for many many years.  Just out of touch with the latest graphics and suchlike over the past 3 years.  And I trust you guys on here.

 

4 minutes ago, stevember said:

The hard drives and the RAM is fine, main drive 950 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD with Western Digital Red 2x 3tb raid 0. It's a 1200watt power supply cannot remember now whether it's Corsair but it's a good one.  The motherboard is Asus, less than 12 months old with the latest 16 GB RAM at the time.

 

My system is not lagging memory or writing to the hard drive when it is crunching videos. 

 

The monitor is LG 34 inch curved running at 50 Hz, for some reason I cannot get any higher.

 

Hope this helps.

 

The bottleneck is either the CPU or the graphics card.

 

Perhaps, I should have put a little background.  I used to own a computer shop, been repairing computers for many many years.  Just out of touch with the latest graphics and suchlike over the past 3 years.  And I trust you guys on here.

 

I don't give a RIP what is "fine" or "not lagging". I want YOUR system information. Answer everything I threw at you. See my Sig? tell me EVERYTHING. If you don't know, open up your case.

1 hour ago, Mindovermaster said:

We need to know a little more before we can help you...

 

i5 ####?

Radeon RX560 GDDRAM?

16GB RAM, Speed? Company? Latency?

motherboard company? socket?

What M.2? Company? Space? NVME, at all?

"Fast" Samsung HDD, Size? RPM? SATAI/II/III?

Ultrawide monitor, what size? 27? Company? Refresh Time?

 

Also, what is your PSU? Company? Wattage? Model name (CS###, MS###)

 

Once we know all this, we can help choose what is best for your configuration.

 

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

As well as the specs Mindovermaster asked for, it may be possible you have the nerfed version of the 560. Last summer AMD released a cut down 14CU version from the original, launch 16CU version without detailing or advertising the change. Which card do you own?

 

Either way I believe both will be better than your old 6950, but it may explain why you don't see much of an improvement. Also remember that Photoshop is not specifically a GPU intensive app, although some features require a GPU / CUDA. The processor, RAM and storage will be far more beneficial for most tasks in the app over GPU.

 

The Nvidia 1050 is technically better than your 560, but it's in the same budget GPU bracket and won't change things significantly to warrant switching. Never mind that right now cryto-mining is pushing GPU prices very high and would probably cost more to switch regardless.

Hopefully these screenshots might help.  Not sure where the boxes are, being paralysed I would have to wait I can get some help to get them. 

 

Graphics card : https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07219923L/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

1.PNG

2.PNG

3.PNG

4.PNG

5.PNG

1 minute ago, Mindovermaster said:

I don't give a RIP what is "fine" or "not lagging". I want YOUR system information. Answer everything I threw at you. See my Sig? tell me EVERYTHING. If you don't know, open up your case.

I see your signature, and mine is pretty much identical to yours as far as I can tell.  Including the case.

 

If you require more information than what you've got please let me know.

I believe, for video editing, you need an i7. I'm not 100% sure on that, but from what I remember.

 

Video editing is not GPU intensive as Andrew said above.

 

Are you sure your CPU temps are OK? That it's not running at 100% when you video edit? Does it ever eat up your RAM?

1 hour ago, stevember said:

 

Hopefully these screenshots might help.  Not sure where the boxes are, being paralysed I would have to wait I can get some help to get them. 

 

Graphics card : https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07219923L/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

2.PNG

 

Unfortunately (I think), you have the nerfed 560. It's "almost" the same as the original spec, but comes with 2 GB VRAM instead of 4 and 14CU / 56 TU vs 16 / 64. All in all, the difference is 12.5%.

 

Another way to tell is if you bought it before October or not. Apparently the new and old editions eventually came in both 2 and 4 GB VRAM configs.

 

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3240264/components-graphics/amd-quietly-radeon-rx-560-graphics-cards-worse.html

 

AFAIK, AMD never made good on an upgrade or replacement scheme. When did you buy it? Was it from Amazon? They might let you return it if you explain the situation, then you could go with the GTX 1050.

Edited by Andrew
5 minutes ago, Andrew said:

Unfortunately you have the nerfed 560. It's "almost" the same as the original spec, but comes with 2 GB VRAM instead of 4 and 14CU / 56 TU vs 16 / 64. All in all, the difference is 12.5%.

 

AFAIK, AMD never made good on an upgrade or replacement scheme. When did you buy it? Was it from Amazon? They might let you return it if you explain the situation, then you could go with the GTX 1050.

That is the nerfed one? OK, I wasn't sure. Thx :)

 

*writes this down in my black book of nerfs*

15 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

That is the nerfed one? OK, I wasn't sure. Thx :)

 

*writes this down in my black book of nerfs*

Updated my post. Apparently AMD are now shipping both 2GB and 4GB variants, which is what I was going off from his screenshot to identify.

My temperatures are good, I have Noctua fans temperatures never go high even under workload.  I am an absolute temperature obsessive no noise as I do recording and it's in a studio.

 

Okay, that's not good.  So I do need to replace it.  So am I better off in the money into an i7?

 

I really do not care for games at all.

TEMPS.PNG

5 minutes ago, Andrew said:

Updated my post. Apparently AMD are now shipping both 2GB and 4GB variants, which is what I was going off from his screenshot to identify.

You purchased this item on 9 Nov 2017. 

 

So really it could be. 

 

Even in Windows the 2D drawing is not great at all.

28 minutes ago, stevember said:

My temperatures are good, I have Noctua fans temperatures never go high even under workload.  I am an absolute temperature obsessive no noise as I do recording and it's in a studio.

 

Okay, that's not good.  So I do need to replace it.  So am I better off in the money into an i7?

 

I really do not care for games at all.

TEMPS.PNG

 

25 minutes ago, stevember said:

You purchased this item on 9 Nov 2017. 

 

So really it could be. 

 

Even in Windows the 2D drawing is not great at all.

If your performance in Windows is as bad as you say, it's likely it's the lower 560 model IMO. That card, while in the budget bracket, is capable of 1080p gaming (if we're talking about the original specification).

 

So, it comes down to if you still experience issues with rendering or editing? If it's the rendering time I'd focus on a CPU upgrade to an i7 so you can take advantage or hyper threading. If it's editing work where you experience an issue mostly, a GFX card upgrade would probably benefit you more. The i5 Skylake isn't very old and can probably render 1 min of 1080p in less than a minute with ease, and upgrading it to the equivalent i7 would have only shaved off 1/3rd if that. Coffee Lake has added more cores, but IIRC Photoshop is a single core app, so it's not going to benefit hugely there. Otherwise, the extra cores will just make rendering times shorter.

 

A GFX card upgrade will help boost your editing performance, and on the side even help off load work from the CPU for rendering. I'd contact Amazon and see if they will help you out with a refund; their customer support is usually really good about this kind of thing. They might not understand the tech jargon, but if you show them the article I posted earlier it may help. That way you could put money towards a different card from the refund and put the $250 you originally budgeted towards a new i7.

1 minute ago, Andrew said:

 

If your performance in Windows is as bad as you say, it's likely it's the lower 560 model IMO. That card, while in the budget bracket, is capable of 1080p gaming (if we're talking about the original specification).

 

So, it comes down to if you still experience issues with rendering or editing? If it's the rendering time I'd focus on a CPU upgrade to an i7 so you can take advantage or hyper threading. If it's editing work where you experience an issue mostly, a GFX card upgrade would probably benefit you more. the i5 Skylake isn't very old and can probably render 1 min of 1080p in less than a minute with ease, and upgrading it to the equivalent i7 would have only shaved off 1/3rd if that. Coffee Lake has added more cores, but IIRC Photoshop is a single core app, so it's not going to benefit hugely there. Otherwise, the extra cores will just make rendering times shorter.

Thank you, that makes some sense.

It is the rendering time I would like to decrease.

Also, Netflix will not allow me to have ultra quality with this video card.

4 hours ago, Mindovermaster said:

That is the nerfed one? OK, I wasn't sure. Thx :)

 

*writes this down in my black book of nerfs*

Hey, do you have any advice? I provided you with all the details. I presume my RAM and HDs are okay? 

57 minutes ago, stevember said:

Hey, do you have any advice? I provided you with all the details. I presume my RAM and HDs are okay? 

I asked you for your information. I asked you that so the other members can help you more. I think Andrew answered your question rather well. What do you need from me?

If you only want to spend around $250ish I would wait until  the bitcoin craze calms or hopefully dies.
It's making pc upgrades a cash grabbing rip off for retailers, for example the gtx 1060 6gb was about 220 and a year later it is 340.. It really is a bad time to upgrade :/

5 minutes ago, Sensi said:

If you only want to spend around $250ish I would wait until  the bitcoin craze calms or hopefully dies.
It's making pc upgrades a cash grabbing rip off for retailers, for example the gtx 1060 6gb was about 220 and a year later it is 340.. It really is a bad time to upgrade :/

Thank you,  that makes sense. 

 

 I will look at some price trends for CPUs, I’m not sure they are as wanted as the GPUs.

7 hours ago, Mindovermaster said:

I don't give a RIP what is "fine" or "not lagging". I want YOUR system information. Answer everything I threw at you. See my Sig? tell me EVERYTHING. If you don't know, open up your case.

Being a member of this site for 17 years, I stopped posting a few years ago because of this kind of attitude. I appreciate you helping, and I have given you the respect in answering your questions. But respect goes both ways. Please don’t presume that I know nothing about computers. And as the thread when on I was right. I pointed out where the problem wasn’t to save time. 

 

Perhaps it was my bad to not explain in detail my depth of knowledge in computers to begin with. My career has taken a different path, and I don’t daily study the crunching power of graphics cards. 

 

However, thank you for your time and appreciate the help. 

21 minutes ago, Mindovermaster said:

I asked you for your information. I asked you that so the other members can help you more. I think Andrew answered your question rather well. What do you need from me?

 Andrew did indeed.  Just wondered if you had any more knowledge, we can always learn more. So it looks like new CPU would be the most beneficial. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!