unr3al

The time I spent doing any kind of coding and web development was in the days before smart phones were a thing, so I have no idea, sorry. You may have to buy a Mac then and run Windows on it using BootCamp or Parallels or something.

Then test it.

You'd be installing a copy of Windows on your Mac for gaming purposes so I wouldn't bother with an Apple product at all. Macs are well built but they're highly proprietary. The 13" MacBook Pro's from a few years ago had 50 screws to get them apart, and the new ones use glue along with the screws. If I may be so bold as to say so; you're doing too much with one computer. If you're involved in a multimedia degree program involving video or audio editing, I'd use a Mac due to some software that's exclusively for Mac OS. Most students going for those degree programs use Macs. If you're developing web pages or programming, I'd use a PC since you'll likely be programming software for Windows since MacOS to this day has a very low market share.

Sub-$300 for gaming is non-existent, as I said up above, sorry. Save up. To give you a point of contact, either a CPU chip or graphics card for a decent caliber machine would be $300 by itself. I edited my original post for better accuracy of the performance figures. It's a 44% increase in performance from a 960 to a 970, and an 80% increase from a 960 to a 980. You can always go Google some CPU and GPU benchmarks if you want performance comparisons.

I'd have to refute a lot of that. Intel CPUs model for model are going to do a better job than AMD's. AMD processors are often 8 cores, but each individual core is smaller and is capable of doing less work. Many games are also unable to use upwards of 4 physical cores, and others are able to use hyper-threading, which no AMD processor supports, to my knowledge, as it's an Intel technology. The GTX960 as I described in a different thread is comparable to a GTX670 which is what I'm currently running; a card that was cutting edge in 2013. It's 2016 now (happy new year). A GTX970 yields a performance jump of about 44%, a GTX980 yields a jump of about 80%. I also disagree with your assessment of RAM. 8GB is sufficient for today's games, however: The problem with the hardware you're picking is it's not taking into account the next three to four years to come. That's how long these PCs should be dated for before the components become grossly obsolete. Two things I'd like to mention to the OP: -Flat minimum of $800 budget for a decent experience, $1200-1500 for a great experience unless you have pre-existing components to help you reduce spending on things like monitors, hard drives, mouse & keyboard, etc. Cutting corners on your spending only ends up with you cheating yourself. -GTA IV will not run stable with a ton of mods, it does not matter what kind of PC you have. You're adding a ridiculous amount of them on. Just keep it to a few modded cars and an ENB with LCPDFR. Having a million car mods and running 20 scripts in the background is essentially asking for repeated game crashes. I would also advise not making this mistake with other video games. GTA V seems to be a more stable game, but we don't know as much about it as we do about GTA IV, because the game's been out for less than a year on PC. I would advise a 6 core Intel, 980 and 12-16GB of RAM if you can spend the money. If you can't, 4 core Intel, 970 and the same amount of RAM, but you're going to have to upgrade or replace your computer sooner. Ideally if you can wait for the next generation of graphics cards and not buy anything right now, I'd do that. nVidia is overdue for a new GPU architecture that's going to reset the '900' numbering system by changing it to something else and possibly even de-throne TITAN as top of the graphics card food chain. But if you need something right now, that's what I'd do.

I'd be surprised if they installer let you continue to the end. Your computer is circa 2006. Time to buy another.

No, sorry. I don't play with any mods except LSPDFR because I'm a tester for G17. Adding on more mods might create problems like the ones you're having, so I don't want to incorrectly attribute those problems to LSPDFR and give bad feedback to the developers.

I'd Google search for the answer. Or you can just try it right now and test it. I'd imagine it just captures in-game only since it has less performance impact than traditional recording software, and it was patched in to older nVidia cards and comes standard on brand new ones. It only records for 20 minutes at a time, also. FRAPS can record audio from other applications and your microphone if you tell it to do so in the settings panel.

You'll be spending $800 or more on a decent PC. The one you linked has too little RAM and a bad graphics card.

When you experience problems, always try running LSPDFR with none first. Add them back in one by one until the problem surfaces again.

"I don't want a large Farva, I want a god damned liter o' cola."

He'd be running the game at low settings. And Grand Theft Auto V is out now, in case he doesn't know.

Never. Congrats on hitting 21 or whatever the age is in your country. Not worth the hype, is it?

That's incorrect, all are a major factor and the GPU matters a lot because it takes work load off of things that might otherwise be passed onto the CPU. Professional video or graphic editors have large GPUs in their work station computers for this reason. Oddly enough, the 960 isn't as great as a lot of people think it is. http://www.hwcompare.com/18437/geforce-gtx-960-vs-geforce-gtx-670/ I have a GeForce 670 right now. Note that the overall score in 3DMark is only a 5% difference, despite the generational gap. The 670 actually has more memory bandwidth and a higher texel rate. What all of this means is that the results with recording will likely be the same as what I get, depending on what graphical sacrifices you're willing to make for the sake of smooth video. The 970 or the 980 would yield a much more noticeable overall difference (44% for the 970, 80% for the 980). It has four. i5's don't have hyper-threading. That might be true to an extent (a solid state drive would certainly help), but recording and playing on the same PC is a tall order with advanced game engines. Your best bet in general is to have a second computer to record the video onto, that way the video card in the gaming PC only has to render everything on screen once, for display only, and not record it to a raw video file at the same time. I'd suggest ditching Bandicam and trying something else. I use FRAPS but you get some performance loss. You'll have to adjust your graphics settings to match it, or get a different video card.

There might be more eventually, but that's it for now.

That's not really a source. That would be like me writing a bunch of random crap about what I think should be in Battlefield 5 on a website I registered called "Battlefield 5 Net", and then saying its a reliable source for information. There's no name as to who owns the site, no source for the rumors and it's made with WordPress.

Mafia 1 & 2 are very difficult to work with compared to the Grand Theft Auto engines. Someone did make a free-roam mod for Mafia II if I remember correctly, but there was nothing to do in it so you wound up getting bored very quickly. The open map of Mafia 2 just didn't have as much "life" in it as the maps of GTA III, IV, V, etc. Mafia 3 may be different, and maybe the game engine they use will be more open to tinkering. Who knows.

It's famous for the grunge movement of the 1990's and the space needle, that's really it. The only other things that come out of there that make the news are meth lab busts and stolen vehicles, both of which are extremely common in northern, less developed parts of the U.S. for some reason.

I remember it being very highly rated. And I remembered correctly: http://www.ign.com/games/swat-4/pc-680038 On Amazon you can get it used for $58, but I have no idea how reputable that retailer is. The problem is that this game was developed by Irrational Games & Sierra, and published by Vivendi. All of these companies are now defunct or have been bought out by someone else. Technically the game is co-owned by Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft, who could dispute each others usage of the game and its franchise name. So we'll probably have to settle for the Rainbow Six franchise, which has been on a roll for three consecutive titles, in my opinion. I'm buying the newest one shortly.

This would completely defeat the purpose of a Grand Theft Auto sequel set in Liberty City in the near future. I can't say for sure if it's true or false, obviously, but this would be a bad financial move unless they already had a GTA 6 in the works in a completely different location. Also "updating the graphics" isn't as easy as the guy in the YouTube video makes it sound. They'd have to re-do all of the geometry and textures in the map.

I'd have to disagree. Third person, open world, ability to get out of the car in some of the titles to shoot people or jack other cars, main protagonist has a personal score to settle, etc. Grand Theft Auto III heavily took after Driver 2, which was a game on the original Playstation that came out nearly a year before it. I'll concede that the Grand Theft Auto games are in my opinion; 'better', but this particular genre of third person action/driving games has been done to death. The thing that keeps this genre going is that we sometimes have to wait half a decade in between releases.

That game exists. Its called Driver San Francisco, and Driver '76 if you want the retro vibe. San Francisco is very small, too. We need a big area. I'm betting on Vice City for the next game, hopefully set in modern times.

Good deal, didn't check out the rest of the channel. Good find.

They're from a year ago, they wouldn't be applicable. Just search Google for 'garland texas police shooting knife' or something similar. Maybe drop the 'ing' from the word 'shooting'. The last major news of a shooting from Garland TX I had heard of was the 'Draw The Prophet Mohammed Contest' attack, which attracted ISIS sympathizing gunmen; surprise surprise.