|
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting
more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
misfit wrote:
I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
~misfit~ wrote:
I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. Coin mining (Ethereum) has wiped out both the used market and the new market. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is done with AntMiners (ASIC). The computer store has poor stock levels on a number of cards. They did have good stock on just one card... selling for $600 CDN. And there's an additional development. Cards with VGA connectors have disappeared. The DVI connector on the video card is DVI-D, so there's no longer DVI-I either. To get a VGA output, you have to buy an additional DisplayPort to VGA adapter. Even if you were after a bargain card (a $50 card selling for $145 CDN), you'd have the added insult of throwing an adapter cost on top of it. It's a *hell* of a good time to be buying a video card. ******* https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php Radeon HD 7770 2,208 https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 13,774 Too much power up here... 250W Radeon RX Vega 64 11,709 And too expensive ($1000 ???) 295W+ You can't get those anyway... Unobtainium. GeForce GTX 1070 11,076 150W *Wikipedia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 8,809 120W *Wikipedia $400CDN 3GB $530CDN 6GB Radeon RX580 6,939 185W *Wikipedia Radeon RX 570 6,785 150W *Wikipedia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 5,827 Radeon RX560 4,498 80W *Wikipedia $350 (the one for $230 unavailable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_500_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_10_series A GTX 1060 3GB isn't much good for coin mining, as the memory footprint for Ethereum is currently 3GB. The GTX 1060 6GB card should be in higher demand. I have no idea what the texture memory footprint on modern games is. I haven't played a 3D game in a couple years. The largest memory on video cards, comes with things like a Frontier Edition card, at around 16GB. So that's the largest texture memory you can get. Or Coin Mining memory, as your preferences dictate. I bet a few people in the gaming industry are ****ed, as it kinda puts a damper on their market. This will have the unintended consequence of people walking away from gaming, since they can't get a decent card. A couple developments are on the memory front. Time was, you put crappy (regular) DDR2 or DDR3 memory on the low end cards. You put GDDR5 on the mid-range and up cards. Now, the industry seems to have dumped DDR3 and the cards all seem to have GDDR5. On the other hand, cards like VEGA 64, have an HBM2 memory stack, inside the GPU package. This means there are *no* memory chips clamshelled and distributed around the GPU. The video cards are still long, but underneath, the space is taken by power converters. And the space above, perhaps by a vapor chamber and multiple fans (in an attempt to keep the GPU cool). The designs are really lunacy now. And by using HBM2, with limited supplies of HBM2, they're shooting themselves in the foot. So two memory developments, the concentration on GDDR5 and the introduction of HBM2 and silicon substrates+MCM packaging, are making a shambles out of video card production. Meanwhile, the claim is (I don't believe it), that memory makers are switching to making Flash. I instead believe there's a lot of supply manipulation going on, to raise prices. Just as local grocery stores here were caught price fixing... bread. Of all things. Bread. Bread has been a favorite of this kinda crap - you can find references to a hundred years ago, to the manipulation of bread. It's a historical tradition. If you're not manipulating the price of bread, what the hell kind of businessman are you, anyway ? :-/ Paul |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote:
misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. For a reason - the developers claim it'll run on a 'potato' - which it will if you don't mind cartoons. It's Path of Exile, a game produced by a small New Zealand company. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
Once upon a time on usenet Paul wrote:
~misfit~ wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. Coin mining (Ethereum) has wiped out both the used market and the new market. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is done with AntMiners (ASIC). The computer store has poor stock levels on a number of cards. They did have good stock on just one card... selling for $600 CDN. And there's an additional development. Cards with VGA connectors have disappeared. The DVI connector on the video card is DVI-D, so there's no longer DVI-I either. To get a VGA output, you have to buy an additional DisplayPort to VGA adapter. Even if you were after a bargain card (a $50 card selling for $145 CDN), you'd have the added insult of throwing an adapter cost on top of it. It's a *hell* of a good time to be buying a video card. ******* https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php Radeon HD 7770 2,208 https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 13,774 Too much power up here... 250W Radeon RX Vega 64 11,709 And too expensive ($1000 ???) 295W+ You can't get those anyway... Unobtainium. GeForce GTX 1070 11,076 150W *Wikipedia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 8,809 120W *Wikipedia $400CDN 3GB $530CDN 6GB Radeon RX580 6,939 185W *Wikipedia Radeon RX 570 6,785 150W *Wikipedia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 5,827 Radeon RX560 4,498 80W *Wikipedia $350 (the one for $230 unavailable) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_500_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_10_series A GTX 1060 3GB isn't much good for coin mining, as the memory footprint for Ethereum is currently 3GB. The GTX 1060 6GB card should be in higher demand. Thanks for the reply Paul. It seems that the GeForce GTX 1060 3GB would be good for my needs. However at ~NZ$480 and up it's a bit out of my reach currently (and likely for the forseeable future). I'll have to stick with the HD 7770 for a while longer and play with all options at minimum (or turned off). I was hoping that the development of technology would have made it more affordable to get a reasonable graphics card... I have no idea what the texture memory footprint on modern games is. I haven't played a 3D game in a couple years. The largest memory on video cards, comes with things like a Frontier Edition card, at around 16GB. So that's the largest texture memory you can get. Or Coin Mining memory, as your preferences dictate. I bet a few people in the gaming industry are ****ed, as it kinda puts a damper on their market. This will have the unintended consequence of people walking away from gaming, since they can't get a decent card. A couple developments are on the memory front. Time was, you put crappy (regular) DDR2 or DDR3 memory on the low end cards. You put GDDR5 on the mid-range and up cards. Now, the industry seems to have dumped DDR3 and the cards all seem to have GDDR5. On the other hand, cards like VEGA 64, have an HBM2 memory stack, inside the GPU package. This means there are *no* memory chips clamshelled and distributed around the GPU. The video cards are still long, but underneath, the space is taken by power converters. And the space above, perhaps by a vapor chamber and multiple fans (in an attempt to keep the GPU cool). The designs are really lunacy now. And by using HBM2, with limited supplies of HBM2, they're shooting themselves in the foot. So two memory developments, the concentration on GDDR5 and the introduction of HBM2 and silicon substrates+MCM packaging, are making a shambles out of video card production. Meanwhile, the claim is (I don't believe it), that memory makers are switching to making Flash. I instead believe there's a lot of supply manipulation going on, to raise prices. Just as local grocery stores here were caught price fixing... bread. Of all things. Bread. Bread has been a favorite of this kinda crap - you can find references to a hundred years ago, to the manipulation of bread. It's a historical tradition. If you're not manipulating the price of bread, what the hell kind of businessman are you, anyway ? :-/ Hehee! I couldn't agree more. Ever since I've been messing around with computers (more than 20 years) it seems that high-end gaming cards have been ~NZ$1,000 and up, midrange cards have been ~NZ$500 and 'entry level gaming' cards with have been ~NZ$250. It's almost like the sellers see no reason to reduce those price levels. I see that the GTX 1050 is available locally for less than NZ$300 but at 4,466 passmark score it's not hugely powerful. That said it's twice the HD 7770s score and only 75w.... Thanks for giving me a headstart on the subject. Financially the GTX 1050 is my only option now or in the near future. I'll think on it, normally I won't upgrade unless the new card is at least twice as powerful. The 1050 just squeaks in. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote:
misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. Path of Exile: Atlas of Worlds *min* sys req: CPU: x86 compatible 1.4GHz RAM: 2GB Video Card: NVidia 7800GT Yeah right! Maybe if you're happy with 20 fpm. Even with everything turned down to the minimum my QX9650 w 8GB RAM / HD 7770 idles at ~30 fps but drops below 10 fps at times. If I enable shadows and antialiasing at the lowest settings it sometimes drops to 2 fps for short periods. Seriously. Cheers, -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
misfit wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. For a reason - the developers claim it'll run on a 'potato' - which it will if you don't mind cartoons. It's Path of Exile, a game produced by a small New Zealand company. https://www.systemrequirementslab.co...of-exile/11575 Well, does your PC qualify? Those are minimum requirements. Since no recommended or optimal requirements are listed, tis likely the game author didn't specify those hardware levels. Your HD 7770 looks more than capable enough for that game. https://techreport.com/review/22473/...-ghz-edition/2 That's just for Path of Exile. There are 4 games with that base title name. They didn't list the latest expansion but the one before it yet that has requirements much lower than what you have for a video card. You didn't mention your other hardware specs, like system RAM, mass storage (HDD or SDD, make and model). While their minimum reqs are lower than your CPU (QX9650), that's probably the choke point in your hardware setup. My Q9400 2.66GHz limits me from playing some of the latest games. Your CPU is a little faster than mine (both are quad cores) but probably won't make much difference in gaming. Yet both CPUs are far above what is listed as the minimum reqs for the base game and its expansions. So what is the maximum resolution and refresh for your monitor? The OS is going to query the monitor (if supported) to get its specs and try to get the video driver to use the native resolution of an LCD/LED monitor. Maybe you've got a huge monitor and are trying to run the game at that same resolution. Tis likely you don't need to run the game at that large of a resolution and could go smaller which would up the FPS. There might be other game configs that you've overdone. Maybe you went to 4AA but maybe that's overkill for this game. If the game has a test tool to select the optimal settings, start with those and then inch up until you dislike the artificats in the video play quality. |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
~misfit~ wrote:
Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote: misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. Path of Exile: Atlas of Worlds *min* sys req: CPU: x86 compatible 1.4GHz RAM: 2GB Video Card: NVidia 7800GT Yeah right! Maybe if you're happy with 20 fpm. Even with everything turned down to the minimum my QX9650 w 8GB RAM / HD 7770 idles at ~30 fps but drops below 10 fps at times. If I enable shadows and antialiasing at the lowest settings it sometimes drops to 2 fps for short periods. Seriously. Cheers, Tried booting in Windows safe mode to get rid of all the startup programs to test the game? How much free system RAM is there before you play the game? You certainly don't want the game thrashing to slow disk cache (pagefile) to play the game. Make it so the OS is only playing the game to see how the game behaves in a clean[er] environment. |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote:
misfit wrote: VanguardLH wrote: misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. For a reason - the developers claim it'll run on a 'potato' - which it will if you don't mind cartoons. It's Path of Exile, a game produced by a small New Zealand company. https://www.systemrequirementslab.co...of-exile/11575 Well, does your PC qualify? Yes - or I wouldn't be seeking advice, I'd be doing other things first. Those are minimum requirements. Since no recommended or optimal requirements are listed, tis likely the game author didn't specify those hardware levels. I did say that the game's developers like the public to think that it will run on a 'potato'. Your HD 7770 looks more than capable enough for that game. https://techreport.com/review/22473/...-ghz-edition/2 That's just for Path of Exile. There are 4 games with that base title name. They didn't list the latest expansion but the one before it yet that has requirements much lower than what you have for a video card. Those are the expansions. The latest is War for the Atlas. You didn't mention your other hardware specs, like system RAM, mass storage (HDD or SDD, make and model). I mentioned most of it in another post. I'm using a Samsung 840 EVO 120GB SSD for OS, swapfile and the game with several multi-terrabyte spinners for storage. While their minimum reqs are lower than your CPU (QX9650), that's probably the choke point in your hardware setup. If it were I wouldn't be asking for GPU advice. (I've been building and upgrading PCs for over 20 years and posting here intermittantly for all of that time. I've been running hardware monitoring during game play and the game peaks during the most intense parts at 55% CPU. If the CPU started to become a limit I'd overclock it as I've had this CPU as high as 4GHz stable (with a small vcore increase) without touching vcore and it runs at either 3.66GHz when changing the multiplier from 9x to 11x or 3.6GHz just chaging the FSB to 400 and leaving the multiplier at 9x. My Q9400 2.66GHz limits me from playing some of the latest games. Your CPU is a little faster than mine (both are quad cores) but probably won't make much difference in gaming. My 12MB L2 cache helps the CPU quite a bit. Other than that and clock speed the CPUs are almost identical. Yet both CPUs are far above what is listed as the minimum reqs for the base game and its expansions. Yep - and as I mentioned the CPU isn't a bottleneck, mostly running at around 30% in general gameplay peaking at just over 50% for the most intense stuff. So what is the maximum resolution and refresh for your monitor? The OS is going to query the monitor (if supported) to get its specs and try to get the video driver to use the native resolution of an LCD/LED monitor. Maybe you've got a huge monitor and are trying to run the game at that same resolution. Tis likely you don't need to run the game at that large of a resolution and could go smaller which would up the FPS. That's not an issue. This monitor's an old Acer X223W (TN / 1680 x 1050 / 16:10 / LED backlit). I'd like to upgrade in the near future. That said I run the game windowed at 1664 x 962 so that I can see the AIDA 64 EE / GPU-Z numbers in systray (as well as the taskbar for email notifications etc.). There might be other game configs that you've overdone. Maybe you went to 4AA but maybe that's overkill for this game. If the game has a test tool to select the optimal settings, start with those and then inch up until you dislike the artificats in the video play quality. As mentioned in my other reply lately I've been playing with all in-game adjustable settings at 'off' or as low as possible (AA set to off). I've even set the game to DX9 mode (it also has DX11 mode which includes a trick optional resolution scaling if FPS drops below a selectable minimum). However DX9 mode is slightly better for FPS. Apparently it's possible to do some registry tweaking to get it to run on even more basic hardware but rather than go that far I'd prefer to get a better GPU. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
nVidia GPU reccomendadtion please.
Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote:
~misfit~ wrote: Once upon a time on usenet VanguardLH wrote: misfit wrote: I'm running an ATI HD7770 (with a QX9650 CPU) but the game I play is getting more and more complex. Also apparently it's better optimised for nVidia cards rather than ATI / AMD. So I need an affordable card that doesn't draw (much) more power than the HD7770 (~120w). Obviously it should be considerably more powerful than the now quite old HD7770. I can't afford the latest gaming cards nor can I afford to replace my PSU. I'd even consider a second-hand card if there's something that's likely to fit my needs and price bracket. Thanks in advance for reccomendations. I'm quite out of touch with GPU development lately. You never mentioned the game. https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri Enter the game to see what specs it requires. If you select a game, there's another "Can you run it" button that downloads an inventorying tool. It uploads what hardware you have to their site and thereafter when you pick a game the site will tell you if your hardware meets minimum, recommended, optimal requirements for that game on your hardware. Path of Exile: Atlas of Worlds *min* sys req: CPU: x86 compatible 1.4GHz RAM: 2GB Video Card: NVidia 7800GT Yeah right! Maybe if you're happy with 20 fpm. Even with everything turned down to the minimum my QX9650 w 8GB RAM / HD 7770 idles at ~30 fps but drops below 10 fps at times. If I enable shadows and antialiasing at the lowest settings it sometimes drops to 2 fps for short periods. Seriously. Cheers, Tried booting in Windows safe mode to get rid of all the startup programs to test the game? I don't think I need to. (This is a hardware group yeah? g) How much free system RAM is there before you play the game? Around 6GB typically. You certainly don't want the game thrashing to slow disk cache (pagefile) to play the game. No I don't - though my disk cache is on an SSD. Make it so the OS is only playing the game to see how the game behaves in a clean[er] environment. There is no issue with RAM being limited as even with a few things running in the background I have a couple GB free (and the game always uses between 1 and 3GB regardless of what may also be running). I've checked with the games subreddit and consensus is that I need a better GPU. However when it comes to *what* GPU would be suitable for me the signal to noise ratio there becomes unacceptable as fan boys start pushing their wheelbarrows and people don't seem to understand that a US$250 card (at one of those on-line places there) would cost me over NZ$600. Hence the post here. I already knew that I needed a new(er) GPU - and an NVidia GPU. I just didn't know what GPU would suit my budget and wanted advice. Cheers, -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM*." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) (*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com