Відео

nvidia may have the best top end cards.. but they also own the worst graphical turds ever created. i'll stick with amd's value for money every time.

How are they allowed to manufacture literal e-waste?

The stuttering is the 1% low FPS. So if a game runs at 130 FPS but has a 15 FPS 1% low, it will feel like it stutters instead of a smooth 130. One of the most frustrating thing about the 710 is that it didn't get included with NVK for Linux. Lots of these cards end up in servers, and because it isn't in NVK, people have to use the nvidia driver, which is Cancer + AIDS on Linux. If people want a low power GPU for their server that just works without messing with drivers, the Intel Arc A310 fits that bill. It's almost twice the price, but about 6-7 times faster.

Good video. I would suggest though that you express improvements by percentage and not just fps. If the 3 card is giving 10fps but the 5 card is giving 16fps, saying "it's just 6 fps faster" doesn't have the same impact as the the 5 card being 60 percent faster.

quadro k420 2gb gddr5 128bit bus . hard to find this model as most are gddr3 but it exists and is about 5 to 8 frames faster do to 128bit bus

the ddr5 is not that bad for what it is

there is even a 128bit version of a gddr5 version lol

It's surprising how well, relatively, GTA5 plays on these cards. 4 was always a much shoddier experience (arguably a better story though).

Maybe in a future video you can add more vram onto a budget gpu to see if it makes any difference. I know there is a lot more work involved, than just soldering on more vram. Someone made a video recently adding more vram to a GTX 3080 and it made a difference.

I have an Evga gt 720 1gb ddr3 fanless. The specs seem to be identical to a gt 710. It has an 8x's electrical pci-e, which makes it a small card. I use it to test motherboards & pc's.

I have the worst version of 710, a DDR3 with 1GB VRAM and I love it.

0:28 i happened to also have a 710 gddr5 in my son's pc. ignoring your x4 @ 2.0 (which i assume wasn't taken during render), the other differences in specs are 1. the transistor : unknown (for whatever reason), 2. memory : samsung, 3. size : 1024MB, 4.bus: 32-bit, 5.bandwidth: 20.0 GB/s. it's also an Asus card, btw currently driving a 27" 1440p monitor without issues, though i suspect 2GB card will be needed if i ever upgrade to 4k screens for him

Wow imagine if you saw the performance of the gddr5 model and ended up with one of the 48core variants 😢

The GT 710 GDDR5 really is quite a bit better as a card in general.

Woo Hoo...I'm Second!

Im early

Hey there Jim. Commented on several of your videos before and really enjoy some of the comparisons. Recently did a comparison of my own with heavy emphasis on proper tuning of the FX system. Also tested Handbrake and some well threaded DX12 / Vulkan games. You might enjoy it. 🙂

oh thank god i didint whasted my money on a 710 cause i have old ddr3 pc with intel 4600 graphics and i planed to buy a 710 but now i see its pointless just whastin money on less performance

You tested it on games optimized for dual core, test it on single core games that scale with speed.

During load, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 had lower power draw than Pentium D Presler!? 😮 Wow! Thanks for posting this video. G0 stepping Q6600 and some Pentium Ds have the same 95W TDP, and I've always wondered how hot / power consumption each had during real life load.

The reason q6600 show less cpu usage is the more core. Old games can't use many threads so they use more from the dual core and that's why it faster in older games

Is this works in case fans too?When we pull out the blue wire in any case fan, then we'll have it run at full speed? What happens if I remove yeallow wire too?

Would love to see you making a similar test with a top end G5, with twin dual cores, 16 gigs of ram and an SSD. Those things can be beast from what i have heard, but not in regular computing tasks if it makes sense. As in a core 2 whoops it in youtube, gaming etc. but the G5 could do video editing and some more specialized tasks better.

I still have a I7 3770 maychwd with a GTX 1050 ti in a media sever running Win 10. It still runs older games great.

For single thread applications the 3570 is better but for multi-thread applications and games the FX 8350 is by far the better CPU! It's pretty clear that no software manufacturer has yet to been able to make any practical use of hyper-threading as of yet (even in 2024 as hyper-threading are nothing but threads which feed the CPU(s), and do not function like actual real processing cores)! Why Intel and AMD continue to claim hyper-threads are REAL processing cores is just a pure lie and nothing else!

The frametimes tell a story, just look at how wild the frametime graph is for the GT 710 in GTA 4 god damn

I mostly use VMWare for games that work properly on Windows XP, but don't on W7 or W10.

thanks for this. just what i was looking for.

I run windows in vmware to run visual studio and it runs much better than the same in virtualbox

I hate how VMWare always breaks on Linux.

I loaded up Fedora on my work laptop and decided to make a Windows VM for when I needed to to Windows specific things. I initially went with VirtualBox, but Win11 performance was so stuttery that I went through the hoops to download and install VMWare Workstation and it's been a noticeable improvement.

One test you should try is the performance of software rendered games like OpenTESArena (reverse engineering of Elder Scrolls Arena). OpenTESArena isn't actually complete yet but the renderer is complete enough that you can use it as a benchmark for your hardware up to a certain extent. I think past a certain amount of cores, apparently 8 cores/16 threads, there's diminishing returns, but anything lower it scales pretty well. On VirtualBox it performed like several times worse than the host and vmware despite the fact the game isn't GPU accelerated at all.

Libvirt

Maybe if you didn't use a 6th Gen i5, you'd get much better performance out of VMware

I was wondering about this earlier while taking a shower. Thanks for the nice timing of the video haha. Nice to see what I expected was the result based in some prior experience with VMware Player and VirtualBox. On Linux I use KVM, since its way better than VirtualBox in performance and VMware Player on Linux is a bit funky due to needing to recompile kernel stuff and VMs not showing up on the manager, but accessible when opening the VMware file inside the folder of a VM, and other issues, etc. On Windows I started with QEMU which was purely software based with no hardware acceleration and that was slow af. Moved to VirtualBox, but got issues when they migrated from 6.x to 7.x that broke my VMs. Gave VMWare Workstation Player a shot and it was a lot better, but last time I used it was 3 years ago and it was nice to see its still pretty decent on a Windows host. Now I wonder how Microsoft's Hyper-V compares to VMware and VirtualBox performance-wise

RIP VMWare, you really innovated the IT sector.

I have been rocking VirtualBox for years now and I would always come back to it. Does everything I need for my private use and I dont mind if it takes a minute longer. Also, the moment you talked about "you need to login to do stuff" I noped right out. Thanks for the vid, really interesting!

Might buy this and do this

Thanks for your video!!! I got the new bios version information from your RX550 🙂 I have the same GPU 🙂

I have the old full sized versions, doesn't do it unless I'm streaming 4k through emby. guitar picks are decent spudgers.

It's been a long time, but as I recall, price wise it was a dual core Intel vs the FX 6000 series. So you would likely be more correct to compare the AMD cpu you have to and I 3 or maybe and I 5 not an I 7 to be fair. Lastly, there are plenty of Bulldozers still going to work and chugging along today. For office workloads they are still fine, they were actually pretty good at multithreaded workloads, like having a bunch of apps open at the same time.

They weren't as bad however at the time they released, they were always a behind Intel. They did have a rocky start, the early phenoms had flaws and later Phenom's were pretty decent and more importantly in proper AMD fashion, a good upgrade path. Back then I was rocking an AM2 Asus M2N-E motherboard with an Athlon X2 5200 which ran at 2.7Ghz. It was a decent chip but eventually I waited for the AMD Quads to drop a bit in price as I refused to go lower in my clock speed. So I waited and got the Phenom 9950, which clocked at 2.6. It was a bad overclocker but it ran stable at 2.73 and I was pretty happy with that. It was a proper performance upgrade and it kept me going for a long while. Eventually I sold the PC and build a new one with an AM3 and a Phenom2 965, which after a good while I upgraded it to an FX8350... Yes those chips were highly mediocre, but a fair Price/Performance upgrade over the Phenom 965.

Linux for Retarded's