Okay, I am wondering what you guys think would be the first thing to improve to give me more FPS ingame with a ENB? I am talking should I improve my graphics card, my CPU anything?

 

My Specs

 

Processor AMD A6-3650 APU with Radeon HD Graphics

Video Card NVIDIA GeForce GT630

Memory 8.2 GB

 

 

Also, if you could add some suggestions!

Edited October 31, 201312 yr by Tmbb101

I'm confused on how you have 8.2 GB of memory. Normally computers will have something even like 4, 8, or 16 gigabytes. Your graphics card is ok, but not great. It's probably around a $50-60 graphics card. If you want major improvement, you'd have to spend over $100 for a decent card.

I'm confused on how you have 8.2 GB of memory. Normally computers will have something even like 4, 8, or 16 gigabytes. Your graphics card is ok, but not great. It's probably around a $50-60 graphics card. If you want major improvement, you'd have to spend over $100 for a decent card.

How about the processor? Any recommendations for a graphics card?

How about the processor? Any recommendations for a graphics card?

 

Well, your processor is ok, but it uses an older type of socket that newer CPU's don't use, so it would be tricky finding a new one. Depending on how good your case airflow is, I'd recommend buying a new heatsink and overclocking your processor if your comfortable with that.

 

For a graphics card, it really depends on how much you are wiling to spend.

Okay, I am wondering what you guys think would be the first thing to improve to give me more FPS ingame with a ENB? I am talking should I improve my graphics card, my CPU anything?

 

My Specs

 

Processor AMD A6-3650 APU with Radeon HD Graphics

Video Card NVIDIA GeForce GT630

Memory 8.2 GB

 

 

Also, if you could add some suggestions!

CPU's bad, improving your GPU would help, but not much since that CPU is going to bottleneck a good card pretty severely.

CPU's bad, improving your GPU would help, but not much since that CPU is going to bottleneck a good card pretty severely.

 

Yeah, I'm not as familiar with AMD CPU's, but overclocking should help some, especially since you can get a pretty good heatsink for $20-30 (vs $100+ for a new CPU and mobo).

It's not even the clock speed here, it's the actual architecture. The A series is what you find in laptops. The A6 specifically is usually found in laptops around the $400-500 range and is intended to compete with the Intel Core i3. Not exactly gaming caliber. The A8 and A10 are a little more respectable, and could compete with an Intel i5. The FX series of CPU is the one designed for higher end purposes, which you generally only find in big desktops. You get a much better return on your investment with those. You may see a small boost in performance but I'd trash that CPU & GPU combo altogether.

I'm confused on how you have 8.2 GB of memory. Normally computers will have something even like 4, 8, or 16 gigabytes. Your graphics card is ok, but not great. It's probably around a $50-60 graphics card. If you want major improvement, you'd have to spend over $100 for a decent card.

 

 

I am assuming the 8.2GB was either grabbed by some third party program or discerned by the user.

 

When it comes to memory/RAM 1GB generally equals 1024MB. So, 8GB would equal out to 8192 or 8.2GB.

It's not even the clock speed here, it's the actual architecture. The A series is what you find in laptops. The A6 specifically is usually found in laptops around the $400-500 range and is intended to compete with the Intel Core i3. Not exactly gaming caliber. The A8 and A10 are a little more respectable, and could compete with an Intel i5. The FX series of CPU is the one designed for higher end purposes, which you generally only find in big desktops. You get a much better return on your investment with those. You may see a small boost in performance but I'd trash that CPU & GPU combo altogether.

I see what you are saying. If you buy a cheap $500 PC every 2 years, you actually spend more than if you bought a nice $800 PC every 4 years. You'd save $400 over 8 years if you bought the expensive PC.

 

So, 8GB would equal out to 8192 or 8.2GB.

8 gigabytes does not equal 8.2 gigabytes. 1 kilobyte equals 1024 bytes (a byte is 8 bits), 1 megabyte equals 1024 kilobytes, 1 gigabyte equals 1024 megabytes, and so on. If your computer had 8.59x10⁹ bytes, that would equal 8192 megabytes, which equals 8 gigabytes (8192/1024 = 8). Lots of manufactures like to "change" their definition of a gigabyte so it equals 1000 megabytes, which just isn't true. They can then mark their products so that it makes them seem like they have more memory than the actually do. For example, if you bought a 1 terabyte drive from one of the these manufacturers, it would only have 976.6 actual gigabytes. This leads to confusion with consumers on how much a gigabyte actually is.

For example, if you bought a 1 terabyte drive from one of the these manufacturers, it would only have 976.6 actual gigabytes. This leads to confusion with consumers on how much a gigabyte actually is.

 Part of that is due to OS formatting loss, though.

Part of that is due to OS formatting loss, though.

That was without OS formatting. My one terabyte drive only has 931 gigabytes of total usable space.

Technically, the "correct" notation is kilo-, mega-, giga-, etc., mean what they do with all other units (i.e. powers of 1,000). If you follow the IEEE's rules, 1024 B=1 KiB (1024 bytes is one kibibyte, to go with mebi-, gibi-, etc., for "kilo binary" etc.). The IEEE says it because of a combo of storage manufacturers and that's literally what kilo, mega, etc. mean, they have perfectly good meanings in SI units, and it's really stupid to have a special case where they mean something different. In contrast, the way RAM is addressed lends itself to powers of 2 for memory on each card, so RAM (and most programs) treat kilo as 1024.

Technically, the "correct" notation is kilo-, mega-, giga-, etc., mean what they do with all other units (i.e. powers of 1,000). If you follow the IEEE's rules, 1024 B=1 KiB (1024 bytes is one kibibyte, to go with mebi-, gibi-, etc., for "kilo binary" etc.). The IEEE says it because of a combo of storage manufacturers and that's literally what kilo, mega, etc. mean, they have perfectly good meanings in SI units, and it's really stupid to have a special case where they mean something different. In contrast, the way RAM is addressed lends itself to powers of 2 for memory on each card, so RAM (and most programs) treat kilo as 1024.

Ah! So that's what the KiB abbreviation actually means! In my opinion "mebibyte" sounds ridiculous and it's harder to pronounce, but hey, if that's what the IEEE wants. I don't see why people would even use SI unit prefixes for computers to begin with, as the kilo binary would be the proper term, and using the power of 1000 rather than 1024, because it could cause some hardware related problems.

8 gigabytes does not equal 8.2 gigabytes. 1 kilobyte equals 1024 bytes (a byte is 8 bits), 1 megabyte equals 1024 kilobytes, 1 gigabyte equals 1024 megabytes, and so on. If your computer had 8.59x10⁹ bytes, that would equal 8192 megabytes, which equals 8 gigabytes (8192/1024 = 8). Lots of manufactures like to "change" their definition of a gigabyte so it equals 1000 megabytes, which just isn't true.

 

I think you are missing the point, software or something told him he had 8.2GB of memory I was offering an explanation to his issue.

The software could be configured to do everything based off megabytes and then convert to shorthand gigabyte.

 

Again, I was offering a solution/theory as to why it was showing that.