cykarushb
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by cykarushb
-
-
22 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
I don't currently have any viewers running and I'm using 10 of my 16 GB. The programs that I have running are typical for me to always have running, even when inworld. My memory starts getting tight if I run more than one viewer and have at least one of them logged in almost the entire day (memory seems to creep up over long periods of time). I'm considering a memory bump, just to give it more breathing room when my multi-tasking gets extreme.
I would highly suggest getting more ram lol. But yeah, it depends on what you personally do. I idle at 430-450mb of ram usage on Windows 7 Enterprise. With firefox with 10+ tabs, two LL secondlife viewers going, discord, glasswire, etc all that in the background i maybe max at 8-9gb. Hence why i have 12gb of ram.
Meanwhile Squad manages to use all 12gb and a 32gb page file but whatever.3 hours ago, MrsTally said:I see SL Youtubers on their computers running second Life like a DREAM, and that’s what I want. Preferably what ‘strawberry signh’ has. I am a YouTuber myself and would like to run second Life on high graphics, with shadows but also be able to record.
From her system specs page, she actually doesnt have anything too fancy.
https://strawberrysingh.com/about/berrys-system-specifications/
Its an i7 4790k and a GTX 970 with 16gb of DDR3. If i were to upgrade my processor i would match her performance exactly and my PC cost me next to nothing. The above linked Lenovo prebuilt PC will compare to it fairly close, a little less on the GPU side but the modern i5 8400 is very similar in performance to the 4790k. Check here: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-4790K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8400/2384vs3939
The i5 8400 is really about the same, very minimal difference. TO match her specs you could likely find a model of that lenovo PC or something similar with a 6gb 1060. The 3GB 1060 is slightly below a 970, the 6gb 1060 is right on par with a 970 (although has slightly more video memory.
So an i5 8400 + a 1060 6gb, something like this prebuilt wise: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883230367
Personally i dont like CyberpowerPC, they arent the greatest, but im the kind of person who builds their own PC's, so take my word on them with a grain of salt. I can say that they have great customer service. You can add another 8gb easily, if you wanted more ram, just get 2x4gb of 2400mhz DDR4, that PC has two open slots. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231886
3 hours ago, MrsTally said:I am willing to “build” my own desktop as some people refer, but then again a lot of people say that’s a waste of time and money.
Building your own PC is something you definitely can do, in the end it costs about the same, but it can be fun to do and allows for a greater level of customization and control over what youre getting. This here would be every single part needed to build your own Mini ITX pc with an i5 8400, 16gb of ram and a 6gb GTX 1060. To run SL maxed at all times and compare to that youtubers PC.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/MMJB7W
Just around 970$. Ignore the mail in rebates.
Now i only picked Mini ITX because realistically its all you need for one GPU and its a good case i have personal experience with, and its super small. This is an LTT video on the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve47gXwkvaI
Its easy to work in and a good choice for a first time builder. If you want to actually do that.I would happily write out a step by step and provide a literal wall of text worth of resources on how to do that, simply say if you want to. Its my hobby and i enjoy teaching others.
-
2 hours ago, MrsTally said:
I’m a little dumb when it comes to computers, sorry ?.
i have no clue what CPU, i3 or i5, AMD, AML, RTX or any of that is, I’ll have to do more research on the terms you have provided.
i need all these tech terms put in Dummy form LOL so I can understand a bit better.
should I get a dell, or Alienware, apux, toshiba? I have no idea, I just need suggestions on an exact computer that will run second Life as smooth as can be. I am willing to “build” my own desktop as some people refer, but then again a lot of people say that’s a waste of time and money. I’m just stuck. I don’t want to waste money, then get home and get on second Life and have it run like complete crap still. I’m really scared about that happening. I see SL Youtubers on their computers running second Life like a DREAM, and that’s what I want. Preferably what ‘strawberry signh’ has. I am a YouTuber myself and would like to run second Life on high graphics, with shadows but also be able to record.
Ive been searching, researching, looking at videos, asking people for MONTHS about what computer I should get, and still no luck.
for example I’ll ask someone what computer I should get and they will say “get a dell laptop with yadaa yaddaaa...” then someone else will say “DONT GET A DELL, they are a waste of time and money” so I sit here like... uhhh... what should I do.
Someone kindly suggested I post this on SL forums and some computer ‘experts’ will tell me the way to go, so I really really appreciate all of you trying to help me out in any way, you guys are incredible.
CPU is the processor in the computer, it's a little more important than the gpu for SecondLife. The CPU handles math, physics and lighting, the gpu handles textures and object geometry.
Intel has a processor brand lineup that is as follows;
Celeron: Dual Core Processors
Pentium: Dual Core Processors but some have Hyper Threading (functions like four cores)
i3: Higher end Dual core, some quad cores
i5: Mid and high end quad cores with hyper threading
i7: high end quad or 6 core processors with hyperthreading
Better the processor you can get the better SL will perform. It gets a little more complicated than that, but that's why I say just get an i5.
AMD is intels CPU competitor. They also make GPUs.
ALM is advanced lighting and materials, the settings in SL that are the most demanding on the system.
RTX is the brand like of the new GPUs from Nvidia. Last generation was Pascal GTX (1080, 1070, 1060, etc) now we have Turing RTX (2080, 2070, etc). With the "GTX" brand name being replaced with "RTX" because they're advertising real time ray tracing as a feature. All you have to know is that they're really expensive compared to the older pascal cards and don't perform that much better. And SL doesn't use ray tracing.
As far as what to buy for SL. I can literally just link you a PC here that will play SL at max and hold decent frame rates without issues.
And here that is: https://m.newegg.com/products/N82E16883794899
Personaly not a fan of the aesthetics. But it's a decent PC and can be easily upgraded in the future. You definitely pay that prebuilt premium but in exchange you get lenovos pretty great warranty and service guarantees.
As far as what to buy otherwise, find something with an i5 and a 1060 3 or 6gb, 8 or 16gb of ram. Basically look for the best price for the specs of that PC. Really take into consideration things like storage as well. That's a 7200rpm 1tb hard drive and a 128gb nvme boot SSD, an nvme ssd is really good and incredibly fast.
Never buy a PC solely on brand, that's why Alienware and MSI charge so much money for gaming laptops. People don't bother to think about the relation between specification and actual performance. They just presume if it's Alienware it's gonna perform good so they shell out whatever they charge.
MSI has some decent laptops on the lower price end, but Alienware is really just overpriced. Dell makes Alienware, avoid dell as well. Though their desktops are OK. Acer makes low end cheap gaming laptops, they'll perform fine but don't expected them to last a long time.
If you wanted to build your own I could provide you with all the info needed to do that and a parts list, or give you a step by step myself.
-
From my personal experience, HD620/630 will let you run SL fine in 1080p at general medium/high settings. Usually with shadows off, though that was with an i5 7200u, so a better processor handling lighting will likely provide a much better experience.
tldr yes, it'll run SL fine as is, though in your other thread you asked for GPU suggestions, adding a gpu wouldn't hurt
-
Open it up, if you have one these (pic attached) 6 pin pcie power cables, 3 or 6gb GTX 1060. The 300w power supply will handle it fine, make sure you get a shorter model because the case is a bit tight.
if you don't have that pcie power cable, 1050ti, AMD RX 560/460 (some models do need a 6 pin, check first).
-
17 hours ago, seanabrady said:
I don't know if there is a perfect computer for SL, but I would be looking for something with at least:
Core i7 (or similar) processor - SL gets a good boost from having a good chunk of CPU available
At least 16 gb of RAM though might as well go to 32 if you can afford it.
A decently powerful video card, with VR and other things these days I would say a gtx 1080 at the minimum.
-SL likes single threaded performance, and the difference between the modern i5's and i7's is minimal there while the cost is drastically different.
-16gb of ram is ideal in 2018 if you multitask while you game, but no casual use will ever max it let alone hit 32gb
-a 1080 would be good because it doesn't hurt to have, but it's definitely not needed for SL
I play SL generally maxed, ALM on, usually multiple sim render distances every little slider to the max and every box ticked. I generally get 30-40fps in less complex places and when there's lots of people around that does slow things down a bit but dropping Shadows or reducing the number of fully animated avatars helps drastically if I'm gonna be in crowds.
And I have an older i5, 12gb of ram and a GTX 970.
So if say if you're looking into a PC and want something modern that will max SL, really any pc on the market with a newer generation i5, 16gb of ddr4 and on the Nvidia side a bare minimum of a 3gb GTX 1060. Though any higher tier GPU will work better the margins would be small and the cost drastic. Don't buy anything that advertises an RTX card, SL doesn't use real time ray tracing and without that feature the RTX cards aren't worth the price increase over their previous generation Pascal 10xx series cards.
On the AMD side, Ryzen 5 processors in general, you won't really see any performance difference with Ryzen 7 because it's just an R5 with more cores in the end and SL doesnt care how many cores you have. Ryzen 3 would be fine but you're looking at a lower end system overall there.
Dell has a lot of prebuilt AND based gaming machines that are pretty cheap. Something like an R5 2600, 16gb of ddr4 and an RX 580/570 would be very common and priced well for the performance you would get.
AMD GPUs on the high end are Vega 56 and 64 cards, you really won't see these in prebuilts. You'd really have to hunt for one if you wanted to go AMD high end. However this is beneficial for SL, as AMD's high end vega cards share a lot of features with their professional radeon pro line, and SL greatly prefers "workstation" drivers and hardware over "gaming" hardware.
Dont buy anything with an i3, they're not underpowered but for the tiny cost to go from i3 to i5 it's not worth it.
Dont buy any AMD APU with an A in the name. For some reason there are still A10 Apus sold. They perform terribly for SL. However a Ryzen APU such as the R3 2200G or R5 2400G would be basically the same as the Ryzen 3 1200, R5 1400 but with decent integrated graphics on par with a GT 1030. If you're on a tight budget, something with one of those two APUs would be a great option to have until you can add a dedicated gpu at a later time.
Pay attention to hardware pairing. A system with an imbalance of hardware is going to lead to you having problems trying to do things with it in the future. An i7 8700k, 64gb of ram, Nvidia GTX 1050ti...
its like having a Ferrari (i7) with the engine of a Jetta (1050ti) "it's a Ferrari, why won't it go faster?"
And a lot of prebuilts are commonly sold like that because tech newbies see a lot talk about the two most discussed parts, Intel i7 processors and Nvidia midrange GPUs. So a lot of people who wonder what to buy end up buying really mismatched hardware because they see "best CPU for gaming!" And get an i7. And then the "most popular gpu for gaming!" And get a 1050. And these parts are in entirely different leagues. But when they go to do something gpu intensive they wonder why it doesn't perform well if they have a "high end" pc. It's not high end just because you have an i7.
Also note some of the little details about prebuilt PCs that sellers try and get away with. You see a lot of desktops and especially laptops sold with 1tb hard drives, without them saying up front it's 5400rpm. Most desktop harddrives are at 7200rpm. The speed at which the motor runs dictates the speed at which the drive can be read/written to. A 5400rpm hard drive is abysmally slow and will make cache intensive games like SL incredibly slow. Try to find something with a boot SSD if not something that's entirely SSD. And if there is a hard drive pay attention to the listed speed. It does matter a lot for SL. Faster your cache and internet connection, faster things load.
so tl;dr version, anything with an i5/8 or 16gb of ram/GTX 1060 or better
amd equivilent to a 1060 is the RX 580
amd equivalent to the i5 is an r5
no i3/non ryzen apus/pay attention
-
2
-
-
I'm interested in hearing what various SL denizens do irl. What's your job, or if you don't have a job, what's your major hobby?
I drive a T R Ö C K
.
-
8
-
-
and for further clarification on how any 1024x1024 image would become 4mb uncompressed and how it has nothing to do with color...
heres this screenshot from SL as both a jpeg and a 24 bit bmp
definitely larger, but definitely not its theoretical max of 4mb because of all the color consistency thats there, and definitely not what your PC is handling hundreds of at a time
-
1
-
-
Demonstration here with compressed images, a PNG of a 1024x1024 section of the SRGB hued colorspace. This a 214kb image. Note that i cant really make it any more than 750x750, so im not spamming up the place its going to be 300x300. The image is here: https://stuff.mit.edu/~kenta/one/color-lab/dwvcvceg/manylab.png
This image cannot be compressed without losing any image quality, because every pixel is a different color. Even the spots that show entirely white or entirely black to the naked eye are actually different colors. The only places with continuation in pixels are the very top and very bottom single rows of pixels which are entirely black and entirely white.
If we lost some image quality, basic compression brings it down to 164kb, but its noticeable with a gradient like this. Leaving this one at 750x750 to show that.
This is entirely black 1024x1024 png. It is 14kb.
This is the same black png compressed down to 250 bytes.
Chances are you are never going to see an uncompressed image ever used for anything in SL or most games for that matter. Since most of the time the textures you see arent color gradients. For a more realistic scenario, heres a 1024 texture of some wood.
This is a basic texture, its 284kb.
Compressing that down to 229kb brings us this result.
They look identical.
Lets compress it down even more to 189kb.
Looks the same.
-
2 hours ago, Klytyna said:
File formats for images (compressed or un-compressed) are ONLY relevant for STORAGE of images, say on a hard disk, or for transmission of images.
When textures are loaded into memory for display in an image viewing app, or used in a render engine, they get UNCOMPRESSED into BITMAPS, so a 1024 x 1024 rgba image would be 4 mb, REGARDLESS of what the image actually is or how complicated it might be.
That's just not how any of that works. You could've done a literal 10 second google search and read even a single sentence to get more accurate information than this.
Before I explain the rest of that, this kinda posting, big words, bold font, argumentative demeanor and the confused reaction, this is why I state "people who don't know what they're talking about". Its seriously harmful to these forums for people who pretend to know what they're saying to try and answer the questions of those who genuinely need help. Like the time a certain someone pulled up a jira report from 2007 about a mobile ATI graphics chipset having problems when someone said their newer laptop was showing graphical artifacting...
Anyway, textures remain compressed in SL, in fact I can't really think of many things that would use uncompressed textures. Outside of some specific professional programs and well I guess any 3D modeling software. There isn't any reason to uncompressed them. Compressed images don't show a drastic reduction in quality and they're much easier to manage by a game that stores a lot of them for use. They also don't become bitmap files, they're not converted and the texture you see remains the texture the file originated as. The GPU in this game doesn't do much, but it's definitely not spending it's time ucompressing textured which is a hugely CPU bound task, not in designation but in pure efficiency. The GPU is terrible at compression tasks. You can actually test this yourself with 7zips benchmarking tool if you don't believe me. Compression methods rely on CPU clock speed, lots of weaker cores running at a lower speed don't make for very good compression/decompression (a gpu).
And just because a file is uncompressed does not mean it's always going to be the same file size regardless of the content in it. The more complicated the image, as in the more colors that are different from one another and are not next to each other the more complex the data of the image, the larger the images file size. The most complicated image is a 24 bit rgb gradient, so every pixel would be a different color. In regular old png format that gives you your 4mb image. Hell, make it a tiff if you want to be certain of it being a pita to compress.
The less complex the image the smaller the file size. An entirely black, entirely white image is going to be exponentially smaller, with image metadata in png format, under 50kb. Less if you can strip the metadata.
Remove all pixels and all metadata and you can have a 1024x1024 image that's under 1kb. I have demonstrations for these images if you would like, though I cannot post an entirely blank png with no metadata because it causes most web browsers to crash out.
-
9 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:
Sl IS a hog from inefficiency, but not on the part of LL, sort of... Its due to merchants and people using 1024 x 1024 textures fro things like, buttons, doorknobs, jewelry, nails and eyes.. There is no need for it. If its so small you have to cam in tight to see it, use a 256.. or even a 128
this has absolutely nothing to do with the framerate of SL, you would just see these massive textures load slowly, and uncompressed gradient 1024x1024 texture is 4mb. And you will never see uncompressed textures, nor are they all rainbow gradients (to create max file size). Most are going to be 100-300kb in size each.
So even if you have literally 10,000 of these textures visible its only 3gb of memory used for textures. The regular viewer caps at 512mb of texture memory because you're rarely gonna see more than 1gb of textures in one place anyway. Even if it was all stored in gpu vram (which it isnt) nobody should be using less than a 1gb video card in 2018 anyway.
tl;dr no, large textures do not affect performance in SL
This is a massive misconception by people who dont know what theyre talking about trying to find something to blame for SL's terrible performance. It is plain and simple that the game is not utilizing the hardware of modern PC's well, if at all. High end GPU's sit in this game at sub 30-50% usage and people go "huh, i wonder why that could be". Its because the majority of mesh object rendering is still handled by the CPU, almost entirely. Pretty much everything but textures. Shadows, the framing, lighting as a whole, bump mapping and shiny/specular effects, its all CPU bound and to top it all off SL's engine doesnt like to use multiple cores/threads very much. The GPU is really just handling textures and some of the more finnicky math related bits to object placement and alignment.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, RussianBimbo said:
Are they planing to make Second Life 2? I mean, in the future..
I imagine the next largest updates would involve support for multi threaded processors and use of gpu hardware for lighting rendering. It's gotta be done at some point, can't rely on a single core to do everything forever.
-
1
-
-
Well you got it solved but with SL note that it's built on an ancient foundation that doesn't really utilize modern hardware well. I've got an i5 4570 and a GTX 970 and usually play with all the settings maxed besides depth of field and usually with a 300-400m render distance. Gets me 30-40fps. Which is decent for SL
-
6 hours ago, Ansariel Hiller said:
You have 200PB of data on your computer? Streamed via the Internet? Respect! ?
SL is a lag hog and slow as hell because nobody cared updating the rendering pipeline after 2006, offloading all the complex calculations involved with avatars to the GPU that has hundreds of shaders that could do that, instead of letting the CPU do all that - and that in many cases even without using SSE2 (or newer). But if they did, a small but loud group of people trying to run SL on 10 year old hardware are going to complain...
This, this is the point I always have to bring up when someone is concerned about performance. This game relies entirely off of old school legacy code that really likes the way old hardware worked, but with a modern demand.
This game really doesn't care what your GPU is, it wants single threaded performance and a bit of ram. Even if you have a terrible quantity of video memory it just starts using drive cache instead.
I have tested this game on literally dozens of different graphics cards and processors and ram quantities, every windows OS post XP, there's a huge problem where I get nearly the same performance out of a dual core Pentium e series and a GTX 275 that I get with any other gpu I cram in there. The only big performance jumps come with the CPU, but even that peaks eventually where my i5 4570 is performing just a tad bit below a 7700k...
Ive thrown everything from a GeForce4 Ti 4600 to a GTX 970 at SL and it doesn't really care as long as it has 3gb of ram to eat and a decent processor.
Side note, why did this get necrobumped so hard lel
-
Very nice choice, though I would personally forgoe the 1050ti entirely and save up money for a better gpu. The integrated graphics on the 2400g are actually pretty capable and are around the tier of a GTX 750/GT 1030 in many games. It'll do SL perfectly fine (considering Intel HD620 can play this game at higher settings with decent framerates and that's quite a few tiers lower than the 2400g's integrated graphics)
If you go that route, make sure to get the fastest clocked ram your motherboard supports, APUs use system memory as video memory, faster ram = faster vram
You will definitely be able to run multiple viewers on that configuration. I've run multiple viewers on significantly lower specced pcs. Most of what you need is as I said ages ago, multiple cores with decent single threaded performance and ram.
-
It'll run SL fine but it's nowhere near the best performance for the price.
-
This one is short and sweet. Dont ask how i did this or why. Here is simply how it performs:
bad
very bad
super terrible ultra bad
It took 13 minutes to load the game and get to Social Island 5, oddly enough it took about 10 seconds to go from SI5 to NCI Kuula but then it took a very long 20 minutes to load in what you see before you. It took 15 minutes or so for this picture to upload.
Really though it wasnt the worst i guess? Playing on the minimum requirements for SL (1gb of ram, 6600 GT) was worse than this. And thats saying a lot because this was terrible.
-
Why ya gotta necrobump reeeee
tl;dr SL may be single thread demanding because it's an old pos built on for over a decade but it doesn't take high end hardware to have it be very playable
ive played it on everything from 775 core2duos and Pentiums to a 7700k and it really doesn't matter much, if your CPU is anything made in the last few years, SL is going to run fine, low end Pentium T series, i7's, threadripper to athlons, it will be a pleasant experience with decent framerates, quite literally any desktop processor above the tier of a core2quad q6600 will run SL well
hell, I played it on a Pentium 4 from 2002 with an equally terrible gpu and it still started, ran and didn't crash and I was able to actuallly interact with the game, all those legacy foundations leave a game that's not really that demanding, just terribly unoptimized
-
22 hours ago, Ethan Paslong said:
shortly: none
but you could have a look at refurbished laptops, still won't be easy for that price,
For the minimum requirements you can look at your accountpage, the more you go over these, the better SL experience... running those wo programs the same time will ask even more.Also don't use the system requirements page, I did a whole thing on why that page is kinda useless and severely out of date. It's just not useful information to the average user and doesn't give accurate up to date specifications and ranges of usable hardware.
-
For 300$, literally nothing is going to run SL and photoshop too well.
You can run SL on some pretty low end stuff but you're looking at a minimum of about 500$ to get something that would be on "playable" tier. Around 300 you're looking at older gen pre HD 520 Intel laptops or low end AMD APUs. Nothing like that is going to allow you to even touch places with lots of users or complex meshes.
300$ could maybe find you an older used gaming laptop, something with a Nvidia 800 series mobile gpu or even older might be possible in that budget but not common.
On that budget I highly suggest a budget desktop build, optiplex 790 + GT 1030 will run easily under 300$ and won't have any issues with SL and photoshop will be decently fast enough.
-
Hardware is fine for SL. Slow rezzing would almost always be network related. If some stuff stayed missing or gray it could be cache related but just overall slow loading, network.
Your network speeds are fine but im willing to bet your pingtime is whats holding you back.
Because you seem concerned with your PC's hardware, i can assure you the 660 and older i5 are perfectly fine for SL. I run an i5 4570 and a GTX 970 and its just overkill for this game. While you would see better performance with better hardware, it would be a matter of a few frames per second at most. That i5 and 970 perform just a tad bit better than a Pentium E6500k and a GTX 275, which i have tested on SL as part of its "system requirements".
-
1
-
-
All Chinese PC is now the dedicated SL machine. It's pretty low end, Pentium G3260T, 4gb of ram, GT 1030. It plays SL fine though, not too different than my main PC really just because of how terrible SL is with resource usage.
For anyone who cares, this PC has no mainstream NA/EU sold parts. No evga, MSI, gigabyte, etc
Maxsun mobo, Snowman cooler, Goldenfir SSD, ASL GT 1030, Aigo power supply, LTC ram heatsinks and a Rajintek Metis case
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, Whirly Fizzle said:
Ugh I obviously need more coffee.
Ok, so this is a desktop & not a laptop with switchable graphics so what I said above isn't going to work.If you are really using Windows 8, as opposed to Windows 8.1, I'd advise you to update to Windows 8.1, or even better Windows 10.
Windows 8 has a terrible crash rate with SL viewers. This is much improved on Windows 8.1 & improved even more with Windows 10.Make sure your monitor is plugged into the Nvidia cards sockets at the back of your computer & not plugged into the onboard graphics sockets.
For future reference, on most Intel chipsets in the bios you can disable the integrated graphics as long as a pci device is detected. Desktop or laptop
-
9 hours ago, CoffeeDujour said:
Really the RTX cards are developer boards being sold as retail, it's a clever way to push a technology.
Theyre not really trying to push ray tracing on consumers, the reason we're seeing all these cards is because the Turing quadros flopped on announcement. They tried pulling a consumer targeted marketing tactic on a professional enterprise environment and drove away those customers fast. Pascal and Volta had just come out, professionals are happy with them, they perform very well. Less wealthy but less time constrained businesses are buying AMD Radeon Pro cards, especially animation studios where the Radeon SSG shines best due to its gigantic quantity of video memory. All these cards are doing what everyone wants.
The thing though, is that its been less than 2 years since the Quadro GP100 game out, less than half a year since the Volta GV100 and other volta cards came out, and here comes Nvidia with another GPU skew on Turing. Except this time theyre advertising this fancy new feature "ray tracing" and seriously tried to look a crowd of representatives from billion dollar industries and say "this new technology ray tracing" and focused their entire presentation on that, barely talked at all about the actual performance compared to Pascal and Volta cards, and basically left a bunch of really important people to Nvidia sitting there and going "what the hell are they talking about".
They pushed a standard technology as a feature just because it was optimized for it. And tried to push out a 6 month tech cycle for cards that cost thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars. Needless to say, everyone went "nah" and is expressing that theyre sticking with their Pascal and Volta machines since very few of them would do real time ray tracing anyway even in those professional markets, and even if they did, when you have hundreds of Quadro GP100's at your disposal you can real time ray trace all you want.
So Turing went consumer, which is why it was fairly sudden, the cards werent optimized for power consumption and are extremely hot and power hungry, there are very few games that currently support it (and the few that do are several years old and have supported ray traced lighting for a long time) and the big titles that do arent even out yet. It was rushed, they messed up with the market for their Quadro and Tesla cards and had to rebrand to sell to consumers for gaming purposes. Their actual gaming performance without ray tracing is showing them being barely above their pascal counterparts. The RTX 2080ti is basically a Titan XP but at a few hundred dollars less which is ok i guess, but even then the Titan XP barely outperforms a 1080ti for half the price.
-
On 9/20/2018 at 12:01 PM, Whirly Fizzle said:
Your image looks like HttpPipelining is blowing up.
Firstly try a cache clear, which may be enough to fix it.
@Gameshowfan90 basically just that, thats also likely going to fix the slow loading/gray textures and objects you're seeing now, since you just changed a way content is being downloaded and saved, clearing the cache out again should fix it. Note that it will take some time for everything to be downloaded and cached again, once the content is saved on your laptop it will load quicker again though.
On 9/20/2018 at 10:27 AM, Lindal Kidd said:Unfortunately, your Intel HD Graphics 520 is very low powered. I'm surprised it runs SL at all!
Try turning off the Advanced Lighting Model in Preferences/Graphics. Also turn off shadows and reflections, if those are enabled. Reduce your draw distance to 64m.
If your computer is a desktop type, consider purchasing a stand-alone graphics card for it. If you aren't computer-savvy, take it to your local computer guru to get help in selecting one and getting it installed.
NOTE: Some computers already have a better graphics card in them, but switch between the card and the built in Intel graphics to save power, depending on the application in use. Check to see if you have such a machine. If you do, follow your users manual instructions for telling it to use the higher performing graphics for SL.
1) HD 520 is perfectly capable of SL, HD 620 performs very well around medium settings in 1080p to get 30-40fps in places with lots of people around, i used a machine with HD620 for a couple of months without issue, 520 isnt much different. On a desktop GPU comparison scale, its somewhere between an 8800 GTX and a GT 730 performance wise.
2) ALM is CPU bound, it would be a better option to leave ALM on to keep more load on the CPU rather than the iGPU, It would likely benefit framerate very little from my own personal experience. Same with basic shaders. ALM isnt going to affect corrupted textures much though.
3) Thats an i5 6200u, a mobile only BGA processor.
23 hours ago, Klytyna said:Yeah, well... Partly that will be the change mentioned and partly because...
That is almost certainly TOO DAMN HIGH...
Bandwidth is NOT how fast your viewer downloads mesh and texturtes, it's the amount of bandwidth used for viewer/server handshaking etc., and setting it too high slows down everything else, basically your viewers too busy chatting about the weather and last nights TV with the server to bother downloading textures and rezzing things promptly.
LOWER the viewer bandwidth value, try, oh, 750 say, and see how it goes, too low, 50, and the server forgets you are logged in, too high and theres too much viewer/server gossip, I believe Firestorm recommends 500 -1500 as a range.
*sniff*
Smells like Surge and POGS in here? Is it 2003 again? The viewer bandwidth setting is a legacy feature that exists solely because of a time when people usually had less than 1mbps download speeds, there is no reason in 2018 to leave that slider anywhere other than the max it will go unless you have a network speed up/down of less than 15/15mbps. It was only originally there because unregulated SL would happily eat up 2-3mbps of download/upload speed when most people only had 2-3mbps to work with, meaning multitasking was out the question when playing SL. Nowadays there is no reason for that at all because you've more than likely got the network bandwidth to play SL and do many other things at the same time. Leaving it high doesnt mean the viewer is going to be communicating with the server more than it normally would, it just means its going to be slightly faster about doing it since it can push and pull more data at once.This is a serious problem on these forums and i bring this up a lot, there are a lot of oldschool users here who follow oldschool tech. Its just not the case anymore, SL is an OLD game and has its quirks from the early 2000's but most of them dont relate to anything at all in 2018. Like the large amount of people who still refer to AMD gpus as ATI gpus and think they just dont work with SL at all.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Log in issues
in Technical
Posted
It seems to be spotty on/off across the grid. Was able to log on last hour, cant log on now. Last night it was fine, sometimes it was super slow.
Give it some time i guess.