How good would my Geforce GTX 660 2gb do for bitcoin mining?
Mining Overclock Settings For Nvidia Cards : GTX 1060,1070 ...
Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.
I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom. …Only problem: much of what they say is wrong. There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other. Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.
“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up. I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080. I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.
“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."
Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC. Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go! Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered. Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy! Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.
“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”
PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita. PS Family Sharing. Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console. In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system). PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game. Need I say more?
“Gaming is more expensive on console.”
Part one, the Software This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks. Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new. Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount. Part 2: the Subscription Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right? Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly. Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee. Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts. Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
2 free PS4 games, every month
2 free PS3 games, every month
1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72freegames every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month. In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still. All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts. Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst. Part 3, the Systems
Xbox and PS2: $299
Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off. Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short. The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total. And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention. Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware. Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually. Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines). Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway. Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.
“PC is leading the VR—“
Let me stop you right there. If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold. Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone. If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC. Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR. …Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.
“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”
This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam? GTA V
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis. But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right? No. Not even close. iRacing
CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
Memory: 8 GB RAM
GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games. Subnautica
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting? Low-end PCs. What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers. Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars. I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:
“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”
This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading. Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners). Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle. These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up. Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that. Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance. Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X. Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…
“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”
The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time. For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
1.35 GHz base clock
2 GB VRAM
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs. Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
1.29 GHz base clock
4 GB VRAM
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part. But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance. The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
1.5 GHz base clock
3 GB VRAM
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much. Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story! Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
1.5 GHz base clock
6 GB VRAM
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story. I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99. Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say... 94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh. Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
1.6 GHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world? Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story. You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option. In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X. On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
800 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
911 MHz base clock
8 GB VRAM
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here. It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games. …That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7. The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.
“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”
Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team. This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough. On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder. Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them. Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion. Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.
“There are more PC gamers.”
The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million. Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent. For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales. But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million. This isn’t uncommon, by the way. Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total. EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.
This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform. I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across. I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, thisisn’t “anti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer. Cheers.
[Discussion] My own personal guide to used hardware alternatives.
Hi there. My name is Jeff. I've been building systems for the better part of 15 years and try my best to contribute here actively. After being involved in this little community for a few years now, I'm noticing a serious lack of discussion about buying used components, and I feel like it's time to shed a little light on the subject for those looking to build on a (seriously) tight budget. As Linus said in his scrapyard wars video, buying new on $300 isn't practical, and if you posed the challenge to him on a random day, buying used is almost certainly the path he'd choose. As someone who's been "scrapyarding" as a hobby for the better part of 10 years, I figured I'd take some time to share some of what I've learned for the modern audience. Let's begin with a simple rundown of modern "budget" choices, and I'll tell you what I'd do instead. CPU The G3258 and Athlon 860k are the sub-$100 CPUs of choice, and both work just fine. I have built with both in the past, and each carries their own set of advantages. Used Alternatives: You can go in a couple of directions here; if you happen to have an LGA 1366 motherboard lying around, you can get an i7 920 or better for under $50, and they still hold up reasonably well. Being that LGA 1366 boards are not typically cheap when purchased used, my favourite option is the Phenom II x4 Black Edition series, each of which compare favourably to modern budget options, and will even overclock on some incredibly dated, dirt cheap AM2+ boards. In my experience, eBay prices on these get a little too high for my taste, but I've been able to nab several on Kijiji locally in Toronto for under $50 as well. GPU The R7 260x and GTX 750 ti are often cited as budget options for most builders, with the latter serving a very specific role in systems where power draw might be a concern. While there exists no option that can complete with the low consumption of the 750 ti (or even the single 6-pin connector goodness of the 260x), its performance can easily be matched (and exceeded) for less money. Used Alternatives: The bitcoin mining craze from a few years back led to the Radeon 7950 and 7970 being blacklisted on the used market, and I think the fears about burned-out cards are a little overblown. Here in Toronto, you can easily grab a 7950 for the price of a 260x, but I don't pay anywhere near that for my builds. At most, a Windforce will cost me $125, as where I recently picked up some non-boost edition PowerColor versions for a mere $83 each (bought 3 for $250). EDIT: Forgot to mention something important - avoid the reference 7950 and 7970. They were employed to a far greater degree in mining rigs because of their rear-only exhaust, and if you see a bunch of them from the same seller listed at once, they're likely old mining cards. Only pick them up if they're incredibly cheap. Want to go even cheaper? The Radeon 6950 (with the shader unlock, preferably) or even the 6970 will rival the performance of the 260x, and shouldn't cost Canadians more than $50-$60. I personally have 2 in my possession right now, and have gone through at least a dozen in the last 6 months. In general, one should always avoid Nvidia when buying used, because they are far too popular and overvalued for their performance as they age. I still see GTX 660s selling for $150, which is absolutely absurd. Motherboards Motherboards on the used market are weird, and this can largely be attributed to the fact that they're hard to transport and don't handle well over time. As such, people don't really sell boards on their own that often, and you'll likely have more luck finding a combo of some kind (or even a ready-to-go tin-can with no graphics card) for less per part than you will finding a given board on its own. Used Alternatives: The boards I'd recommend depend entirely on the CPU you've chosen. Being that I'm a fan of the Phenom II x4 series, AM2+ boards are going to be dirt cheap, but DDR2 RAM is actually fucking expensive, so you'd likely be better off going with AM3. I've even seen some used AM3+ boards (The 970 ASRock Extreme3, in particular) for as low as $40, so it wouldn't hurt to look. On the Intel side, you're actually at a significant disadvantage. Much like Nvidia cards, Intel boards (and CPUs) actually retain their value and don't often come cheap. For me, LGA 1156 is the price/performance sweet spot, granted I can find an i7 8XX to go with it. Even still, they're going to run you a fair bit more than an AMD board, and likely aren't worth it by comparison. RAM Ram is ram. DDR2 is pricy as fuck due to an obvious market shortage of the stuff, so the AM2+ board option might not be best by comparison. DDR3 ram, however, is ubiquitous, and I always die a little inside when people building on a "budget" choose to buy new at all. If I'm being honest, I can get DDR3 ram from e-waste recycling companies for as low as $10 per 4GB stick, at 1333MHz, and not once have I ever had a bad stick of the stuff. Even for people going the route of the G3258 (which only supports 1333MHz), this is the clear winner. Is value RAM ugly as sin? Sure it is. It is just as good as that fancy Ripjaws shit you've got in your current build? You betcha. Storage Hard Drives are actually a tricky game, as they are the single most volatile component in any budget build, easily succumbing to wear and tear from age and daily use. As such (and some might find this hard to believe) I actively avoid HDDs when building value systems for people and opt for cheap SSDs instead. As always, check the date on a drive if you're really insistent on buying one, and considering how cheap a WD blue is new, don't pull the trigger on one unless it's for less than $30/TB. SSDs are obviously (akin to RAM) highly resilient and are nearly guaranteed to work when purchased used. The average SSD pulled from an old laptop or an office off-lease desktop, will have no more than 100GB of writes on it, which leaves 99% of its life for you to exploit. While there exists no specific recommendation for which brand to buy, just be sure you're getting a relatively good drive with SATA III capability. 120/128GB variants of these sorts should cost you no more than $50 in my native Canada, and I've even gotten lucky on some larger sizes too. Recently I picked up 4 256GB Samsung 840 Pros for $75 each (I came), just days after I bought a Crucial MX100 of the same size for $85. Monitors Monitors are fun to buy, because the recent shifts in display technology have rendered a lot of recent-but-obsolete models nearly valueless. For example, remember when 16:10 was a thing? I actually still like 1680x1050 monitors, but the rest of the world seems to disagree, so I've been able to pick up 23" variants for as little as $40. Being that the slightly lower resolution actually eases the strain on your VRAM a bit, it's a nice fit for a lot of budget cards that might not have a full 2GB available, like some variants of the 6950. 1600x900 monitors are often just as cheap and come with the same inherent benefit of being obsolete despite being almost as good as its bigger 1080p cousin. Keyboards and Mice If you're on a budget, we can't even have this discussion. As much as I like mechanical keyboards and high-precision gaming mice, people building used $300 systems aren't going to allot any of their budget buying them. That said, wired USB keyboards and mice are virtually free (search your local goodwill or value village for some), and if you have to pay money, buy a wireless combo for $20 new from some little shit store in a suburb somewhere. Cases Cases on their own sell for about half of their original retail price, give or take based on the condition. I normally just get them as a part of a tin-can bundle and make use of them if they aren't too dirty, but when building for someone else, I'd often just prefer to buy a new budget case in the $40 range. PSUs I saved this topic for last, because it's by far the most difficult category to master. First off, you really need to do your research and understand how PSUs work before delving into these guys, as the cost associated is almost entirely dependent on how resilient the underlying platform has been proven to be. Generally speaking, reading reviews on JonnyGuru and HardOCP is a great start, but none of them account for units that are several years old. As a general rule of thumb, I use the EVGA 500W W1 as a reference point, and build my value tree around that. In other words, if a new EVGA 500W (a passable, proven budget unit) is cheaper than a used 500W variant of a better brand, why would I bother buying used? Sure, that 520W Seasonic S12II puts the EVGA to shame in terms of voltage regulation and ripple suppression, but can I really make the same claims of a unit that's 5 years into its life? Wouldn't I just be safer buying new? These are all factors you have to consider. For me, the threshold lies around 50% in terms of cost savings vs. risk. In other words, if you can find a used quality unit for less than half the price of the cheapest quality unit available at a given time, buy it. Anyhow I think that covers everything. And as a closing note, remember to be safe. Meet potential sellers (and buyers) in public, well-lit places, and try your best to avoid entering someone's home without some protections in place. Also, the more info you get about the person (address, phone number, etc) the less likely it is that a person will be trying to scam you. People who purposely conceal their identity do so for a reason. Also, feel free to ask me anything about my own experiences buying and selling used. I've been doing it as a hobby for a long, long time and have sold many value builds to people who can't otherwise afford PCs. I'm happy to impart any wisdom I might've gained over the years. Edit: CPU Coolers! Forgot those. Air coolers are a safe bet. They're slabs of copper and aluminum with fans strapped to them. Buy with confidence, and seek one out for $10-$15 if you plan to overclock. AIO water cooling is not so safe. Those things are typically only good for 2-3 years, and you have no idea how much longer a pump has before it gives. Budget builders likely aren't water-cooling anyhow, right? Edit 2: Just to be clear, when I said I'd been doing this for a long time, I should clarify that a) I once owned a game store and sold systems out of there and b) I currently resell systems out of my house to raise money for charity builds. I really don't want people to get the impression I'm trying to sell anything.
I was just wondering, would it harm my GPU (GTX 660 Ti), if I keep mining bitcoins with it for days / weeks / months? I will keep it at ~915MHz Core CLock, 50-60°C and 40% GPU-Load. Can this be harmful to the video card?
Hello /r/hackintosh. I have an actual 2009 Mac Pro and need recommendations for a graphics card upgrade from the nVidia GT 120.
Hello, I'm on a 2009 Mac Pro that's driving a 30" Apple Cinema Display. I've already put in an SSD and maxed out the RAM, but the sluggish display performance of the pitiful nVidia GT 120 is really getting in the way of my photography work. It's a big display, but I also use Photoshop and Lightroom, so I need to stay in the nVidia family to take advantage of the CUDA support. Are there are non-Apple-specific graphics cards that can be dropped into this system? I'm not afraid to flash the firmware and have access to both real and virtual PCs. One issue I keep seeing on Hackintosh systems is that the "EFI" isn't working so you don't see anything until the desktop loads. I am on a real Mac Pro, so I have legitimate reasons to interact with the system prior to login. The last time I searched for "compatible graphics cards" for a Mac Pro, a whole slew of bloggers had jumped on tonymacx86's discovery that Fermi cards (GTX 570/580) worked perfectly with 10.7.4 and above. One popular recommendation was a card made by MSI that ran super-quiet. Unfortunately, all these cards are ridiculously overpriced on eBay & Amazon zShops due to bitcoin mining, and traditiona online retailers aren't carrying the 5xx series anymore. I've read that the 6xx series work fine, but only in connection with Hackintosh systems. Perhaps you kind people could enlighten me and point me in the right direction? I would prefer not to spend more than $400 on a graphics card. Thanks! ~~~ UPDATE ~~~Thank you for your help and feedback. I bought an MSI 660ti from Amazon and installed the card without a hitch into the bottom slot with 2" between the front fan and the edge of the card. The Apple Boot Screen is not displayed, so I'll have to keep the GT 120 installed in Slot 3 for emergencies. The new card is recognized correctly by OS X as an nVidia GeForce GTX 660 Ti with 3GB of VRAM. The graphics are a lot smoother now, full screen 1080p videos on YouTube no longer stutter on the 30" monitor, CUDA works, Heaven Benchmark 4 runs well, and Safari is snappier.
Hello Redditors! I was referred here by a floor mate of mine, she said, 'Reddit is the place to go if you ever need ANYTHING.' She made sure to emphasis the anything part. I recently bought a complete desktop off of a fellow on Craigslist. (The guy I bought it off of is in the United States Army, and he had to literally sell it quick while he was in town. He was being shipped off to California, and was just going to throw it away if he didn't sell it.) He was asking $75.00 for the complete setup, which I thought was decent. I emailed him an offer of $50.00, knowing his hardware was a little dated. After approximately 12 days of going back and forth, I finally was able to meet this guy and complete the exchange. He gave me a monitor, tower, router, mouse, keyboard all for $40.00; he shaved $10.00 off for it being Christmas and all when we met. Here is a little more detail about each of the individual items. The Monitor - It's an eMachines monitor, running 1366x768 with a 60Hz refresh. Great condition. The Tower - It's an eMachines ET1331G-05w Model. This tower is different though, it has 2 HDDs (750GB and 200GB) and a discrete graphics card! (ATI Radeon HD 5450, to be exact.) It's running Windows 7, and I haven't used it for anything besides general web browsing and light BitCoin mining. The Router - It was a brand spanking new NETGEAR N900 Wireless Dual Band USB Adapter, and it works great! (I was looking in stores, and it was $60.00 or so brand new!) The Keyboard - I believe it to be the stock eMachines keyboard, nothing special. It has the Volume controller at top, with a sleep button on the right. The Mouse - It's just a Microsoft optical mouse from what I can tell about it. So, for a grand total of $40, I don't believe I did that bad for what I got. Allow me to get back on track with why I posted here... My friend told me that I'd be able to get help here with building a more up-to-date computer. She explained how it's cheaper and I'd get a better computer for my dollar. I saw that there was this part of Reddit -> /buildapcforme - I don't want someone else to build my computer for me. So, instead of going that route, I am going to propose a build and get some feedback on it. I plan on making this the central-hub for just about everything.... Gaming, Movies, Music, Work, etc... I run Photoshop, NetBeans, Eclipse, and so much more! Here is the AMD Build: PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.
Generated by PCPartPicker 2012-12-31 01:23 EST-0500
I feel more comfortable with AMD, because it's all I have ever used. I also like the idea of EyeFinity. TL/DR -> What are your thoughts Reddit? Does my AMD Build look good? Does the Intel build look good? Current Score AMD - 1 Intel - 2
Hi i have a specific situation and need some advice, in my country (venezuela) the value of a dollar is an outrageous thing because the salary that i can make in one day of work is like a dollar atm, and the economy is going down even more. So i have my PC Gaming rig with an fx 8320 and a NVIDIA gtx 660 ti GPU and was thinking to bitcoin mining just to generate an additional income, because i cant play that much videogames atm, ive heard that mining with nvidia sucks but thats what i have and i dont know if those cuda miners are better, with guiminer atm i only get 180MH/s, so basicaly should i continue to mining? the other factor is that electricity is free in my town, what you think? TYVM
Thinking about starting to do some casual mining. Can a complete newbie get some help, please?
First you need to realize I'm coming in here with close to zero background info (I've researched and looked into mining and Bitcoin in general for about a week now). I do not plan on buying new hardware, and I simply want to use the desktop setup I already have. I was wondering what my first steps should be (a list of software to download, what pools are good for newcomers, etc) and if you guys could help me with that. PC specs:
Windows 7 64bit
Gigabyte Intel Z77 mATX motherboard
Intel i7 3770k
(2) Nvidia GTX 660 Ti's 2GB PCI-Express 3 SLI
(2) sticks of 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz memory
(2) 7200 RPM 1TB SATA 6 HDDs (RAID 0)
750 Watt PSU (Corsair TX750M I think?)
Coolermaster HAF 932 case (comes with (3) 230mm fans and (1) 140 mm fan
I did some of my own calculations to see how much revenue/month I'd be making but to be honest I have no idea if I was even correct in inserting the information. Maybe one of you guys can help me with that and also tell me if I run a risk of overheating if I start mining? Thanks in advance for any help EDIT: Formatting
Help with what I blieve to be a BitcoinMining virus on my computer?
Hi Everyone! I'll preface this by saying I'm also posting something very similar to the MalwareBytes forums. recently noticed my gpu fans running high and my gpu usage at 100% with around 90 degrees celsius while playing games The reason i suspect this is a bitcoinminer, is because I'll be playing a game like Dark Souls 2, a game with very little multiplayer connectivity, and about 20 minutes in I'll drop from a solid 60 fps to around 15. The same happens in games like Counter Strike: GO, where I'll have upwards of 250 fps on bootup, and then crash down to around 100 (doesn't seem like a big deal, but still concerning). I update MSE and ran multiple scans with no benefits, then I installed malwarebytes. I ran a couple of scans and found the usual couple of adware programs but nothing too concerning. Then I started trying other things that weren't virus related. I rolled back my gpu drivers, which actually seemed to help for an hour, until I woke up the next morning and it was doing the same thing. The thing that made me start suspecting it was a virus again was that when I'm playing Dark souls and I get frame drops, my fps goes back up right after I disconnect my wifi adapter (and no, I don't have access to a wired connection right now.) My CPU usage and physical memory are both find, maxing out at about 70% while gaming, and there are no suspicious processes in my task manager. So right now I'm guessing it's either a hardware issue, knowing that my gtx 560 Ti is getting pretty old at this point, or it is a pretty nasty bitcoin mining virus that went unnoticed by two separate virus detections. Please help me with this issue if possible, this is getting very tiring. Thanks in advance! Also, here are my specs Windows 7 Ultimate gigabyte z77x-d3h GTX 560 ti @ stock Driver 188.8.131.5260 i5-3570k @ 3.4 GHz (stock) 8 gigs of ram (ripjaw?) Belkin Dual-Band Wireless Adapter ( I've also tried an old Linksys adapter with the same results) Here is my tasklist idling and connected to the internet "Image Name","PID","Session Name","Session#","Mem Usage" "System Idle Process","0","Services","0","24 K" "System","4","Services","0","988 K" "smss.exe","400","Services","0","1,196 K" "csrss.exe","472","Services","0","4,548 K" "csrss.exe","548","Console","1","19,228 K" "wininit.exe","556","Services","0","4,584 K" "winlogon.exe","604","Console","1","7,612 K" "services.exe","652","Services","0","10,552 K" "lsass.exe","660","Services","0","12,728 K" "lsm.exe","668","Services","0","4,408 K" "svchost.exe","764","Services","0","10,356 K" "nvvsvc.exe","832","Services","0","7,900 K" "nvSCPAPISvr.exe","856","Services","0","5,840 K" "svchost.exe","900","Services","0","8,268 K" "MsMpEng.exe","972","Services","0","87,128 K" "svchost.exe","420","Services","0","23,260 K" "svchost.exe","484","Services","0","198,640 K" "svchost.exe","540","Services","0","18,020 K" "svchost.exe","444","Services","0","47,212 K" "audiodg.exe","1084","Services","0","18,040 K" "svchost.exe","1272","Services","0","16,852 K" "wlanext.exe","1360","Services","0","6,300 K" "conhost.exe","1372","Services","0","2,836 K" "spoolsv.exe","1480","Services","0","12,992 K" "svchost.exe","1512","Services","0","19,060 K" "SkypeC2CAutoUpdateSvc.exe","1600","Services","0","4,924 K" "SkypeC2CPNRSvc.exe","1632","Services","0","5,016 K" "GfExperienceService.exe","1748","Services","0","6,276 K" "mbamscheduler.exe","1804","Services","0","9,812 K" "nvxdsync.exe","1896","Console","1","20,652 K" "nvvsvc.exe","1904","Console","1","13,500 K" "mbamservice.exe","1296","Services","0","90,388 K" "NvNetworkService.exe","1936","Services","0","5,736 K" "nvstreamsvc.exe","2068","Services","0","10,356 K" "RaRegistry64.exe","2108","Services","0","4,164 K" "RzOvlMon.exe","2148","Services","0","3,728 K" "svchost.exe","2208","Services","0","5,616 K" "Updater.exe","2252","Services","0","8,432 K" "WLIDSVC.EXE","2280","Services","0","12,192 K" "SearchIndexer.exe","2628","Services","0","14,012 K" "WLIDSVCM.EXE","2668","Services","0","3,440 K" "nvstreamsvc.exe","2728","Services","0","13,224 K" "conhost.exe","2736","Services","0","3,072 K" "NisSrv.exe","3064","Services","0","7,268 K" "svchost.exe","3628","Services","0","13,628 K" "GoogleUpdate.exe","3472","Services","0","548 K" "wmpnetwk.exe","3308","Services","0","10,876 K" "taskhost.exe","2192","Console","1","12,776 K" "dwm.exe","3496","Console","1","8,724 K" "mbam.exe","988","Console","1","45,876 K" "explorer.exe","2712","Console","1","61,624 K" "nvstreamsvc.exe","2640","Console","1","15,424 K" "conhost.exe","2836","Console","1","4,736 K" "NvBackend.exe","740","Console","1","22,612 K" "nvtray.exe","3016","Console","1","12,592 K" "svchost.exe","4384","Services","0","14,496 K" "mmc.exe","4816","Console","1","10,880 K" "dllhost.exe","4736","Services","0","7,272 K" "Steam.exe","4852","Console","1","111,264 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","4280","Console","1","26,844 K" "SteamService.exe","4572","Services","0","8,656 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","4104","Console","1","69,088 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","4768","Console","1","25,504 K" "GameOverlayUI.exe","4656","Console","1","57,980 K" "taskhost.exe","5916","Console","1","5,204 K" "taskeng.exe","6092","Console","1","6,136 K" "Steam","5396","Console","1","11,204 K" "chrome.exe","5952","Console","1","117,608 K" "chrome.exe","3764","Console","1","169,848 K" "chrome.exe","4108","Console","1","67,844 K" "chrome.exe","2572","Console","1","17,768 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","5800","Console","1","60,244 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","4072","Console","1","77,216 K" "steamwebhelper.exe","4848","Console","1","60,844 K" "chrome.exe","3604","Console","1","66,920 K" "chrome.exe","3868","Console","1","150,212 K" "chrome.exe","6016","Console","1","68,040 K" "chrome.exe","2832","Console","1","21,500 K" "procexp.exe","4648","Console","1","7,356 K" "procexp64.exe","4264","Console","1","23,388 K" "dxdiag.exe","3372","Console","1","19,116 K" "chrome.exe","1868","Console","1","68,248 K" "cmd.exe","4628","Console","1","3,140 K" "conhost.exe","6048","Console","1","5,420 K" "chrome.exe","6072","Console","1","61,444 K" "WmiPrvSE.exe","3596","Services","0","7,472 K" "tasklist.exe","5720","Console","1","5,748 K"
Should i get into mining LTC to make some $ while i still go to school.
Helllo, i'v recently started looking into LTC mining. i missed the boat on bitcoin. Now i have the feeling if i don't do this i might miss out again. I'v tried to set my Geforce GTX 660 TI to mine with cudaminer. Ofcourse i'm not making any profit considering i'm only getting 85khash/s. i'd like to build a semi budget mining rig. Containing. 2x sapphire Vapor-x 7950 and all the other parts cheapest i can find. I do not have to pay for my electricity bill. And it is oke for my parents if i do this. the reason i'm stil not sure is. If it is realy worth it? On difrent calculators its showing me i'l earn around 500-700 euro / month. the rig will cost me around 750-900euro. ( i already have a MOBO + powersuply from my old gaming pc)
[Build Help] Mixed Feelings between these 2 builds
This is a gaming/school build. I would like it to be able to mine some bitcoin when im not doing anything, and i dont pay for electricity so dont worry about wattage too much. I Don't know which one to go for, my budget is around 1150 and i already bought the mobo and cpu. If someone could find a build that had a monitor and an SSD still with a great graphics card that would be killer. (I didn't know if the 256 ssd is necessary so thats not static) PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti. 3.2x more texture fill rate: 102.5 billion / sec vs 31.78 GTexel / s; 2.6x more pipelines: 1344 vs 512; 2.4x better floating-point performance: 2,459.5 gflops vs 1,017 gflops; 1024x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 2 GB / 4 GB; Around 50% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4363 vs 2912 Bitcoin mining with GPU is all about profitability. And to pick the most profitable GPU for mining, you need to pay attention to three things. ... GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: $1.07: $0.98: $0.88: $270: ... 660 days: 722 days: GeForce GTX 1660: 244 days: 283 days: 336 days: GeForce GTX 1660 Ti: 252 days: 276 days: 307 days: Bitcoin Mining GPU ... Geforce gtx 660 ti mining. Close. 0. Posted by 6 years ago. Archived. Geforce gtx 660 ti mining. Is it worth it on my video card? 6 comments. share. save hide report. 47% Upvoted ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government ... Author Topic: How good would my Geforce GTX 660 2gb do for bitcoin mining? (Read 23193 times) Maxx_ April 09, 2013, 06:26:26 PM. How good would it do? This is also my gaming PC I'm probably using, is there any thing that I can use to check the GPU temperature when I am mining? Ad Bot. Mining Overclock Setting for Nvidia GTX 1060. I don’t have Nvidia GTX 1060, these are the minimum OC mining setting which should work. tdp : 80% – 120%. core clock : +75. memory clock : +300 . Mining Overclock Setting for Nvidia GTX 1070. tdp : 80% – 120%. core clock : +75. memory clock : +300 . I don’t have enough data for this post.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE HOW MUCH - http://shorturl.at/arBHL Nviddia GTX 1080 Ti - https://amzn.to/2Hiw5xp 6X GPU Mining Rig Case - https://bitcoinmerch.com/produc... Mining ETHEREUM on EVGA GEFORCE GTX 660TI SUPERCLOCKED!!! Surprising Hash rate !!! Mining Bitcoin with GTX 660 and I7 4790 ... MSI GTX 750 Ti mining - Duration: 1:58. One Media 7,470 views. 1:58. 3 Graphics Card Cheap Monero Mining Rig GTX 660/GT710/GT640 Graphics Cards ... video card damage which result in system crash and image corruption due to overloading from bitcoin mining from unsupported unauthorized malicious access from ESEA client. bitcoin mining gtx 660 and soft overcloking - max speed mining on this video card 85 Mhasg/s if you bitcoin miner bitcoin.