Ground Branch lover

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ground Branch lover

  • Rank
    Pop up Target

Profile Information

  • Gender

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    PC gamer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,085 profile views
  1. I'd advise against picking this CPU ; it's nearly systematically the weakest CPU in this review :,4977.html Also, the FX-8350 can draw quite a lot of power (FX-8370 in the KitGuru review) :,7.html Not sure what's the power consumption gap to be expected while gaming when compared with current Intel CPU's or Ryzen, as you'd generally use 2-4 cores, but to illustrate this point, let's say an FX-8350 draws, at the mains, an extra 50W when gaming and 15W when idle, you're playing on average 4 hours a day and let the PC at idle 6 hours a day, and you're billed 10 cents per kWh. So every year, that's $10.585 of extra electricity bill per year, not taking into account the potential extra dollars spent for air conditioning or a better cooling system for the CPU or whole PC. Also, the main point of upgrading a upgrading the CPU's performance ; here we see that the FX-8350 isn't an upgrade to the i3-4130, and with a massively bigger power consumption over your current CPU : There's also this French review that compares the i3-4130 to the FX-8350 and other CPUs : The main points to remember about this latter review are : 1) Power consumption : at idle, 1 thread and at full load respectively, for the whole system they had FX-8350 : 61W, 106W, 189W i3-4130 : 43W, 62W, 78W 2) Rendering/productivity-wise, the FX-8350 is much stronger, with a performance index of 173.3 for the FX-8350, 105.8 for the i3-4130 3) For gaming, the i3-4130 is better, with 146.7 for the i3-4130 and 128.5 for the FX-8350 As far as I can tell, the main use for your CPU seems to be gaming, so going from an i3-4130 to an FX-8350 would be a downgrade.
  2. Try writing it with the dots between each letter, as in the original name (Yes, it even corrupts the Wikipedia article's URL...) :
  3. Note I'd be wary about this game ; Eugen has the tendency to place the number of units above everything else, and this has been pretty detrimental in Wargame: Red Dragon. Act of War was good, so too were RUSE and the first 2 Wargames. Though in the 2nd, Wargame: Airland Battle, they managed to screw up royally by boosting the power of flamethrower squads to insanely OP levels with the last major patch, and didn't bother to fix it at all, when it's just changing one value to make the game more playable again. During the Wargame: Red Dragon closed beta, you'd think what the hell they were smoking, as they pretty much broke everything that was working well in Airland Battle, and although today's state is better, it still has many many broken things, such as recon units not seeing a damn and having to be sacrificed to gain intelligence. I should also point out that for a game focusing on realism, you'd notice a lot of things that are absolutely unrealistic, and people who know a bit about the real Airland Battle doctrine could be disappointed as the game doesn't try to portray the key aspects of this doctrine properly. Red Dragon also introduced non-free DLCs as a consequence of the pretty bad performance of Act of Aggression. Basically, besides some dubious design choices, Eugen made the mistake of trying to tackle many games in short succession or at the same time, and with too many units, so they couldn't really think about the hard questions. P.S. : Why can't you write RUSE properly ? Here's what happens when you try to do it :
  4. One tidbit about Ryzen that may not appear in most reviews : IMO, this is the most important thing to look for if one wants a smooth gaming experience, so check out if the minimum FPS values are significantly higher with Ryzen or not.
  5. Yesterday, one could say that AMD would rise. Today, one can say that AMD has... RYZEN ! You oughta take a look at the various reviews covering Ryzen ; while Ryzen isn't without some flaws, the results are pretty good. It doesn't best Intel's offerings in games generally, as these aren't heavily multithreaded, but in practical situations, it should be close enough. Also, it's generally close to the best Intel has to offer in rendering and encoding while costing way less, and it has a low power consumption. And AMD's motherboards are normally cheaper than Intel ones at equal features. The main thing to do is wait some weeks/months before deciding what to do ; because of Ryzen's performance, it's quite possible Intel will be forced to lower its prices.
  6. Note I dunno if it's really cost-effective going from an i3-4130 to an i7-4XXX, especially in games, as they tend to take less advantage of multiple cores than other stuff such as Cinebench. You can take a look for example at this recent CPU review, which has the i3-4330, the same CPU as yours with just an extra 100 MHz, where other costlier CPU's don't have that much of a lead, at least in average framerates : If you want to compare with top of the line i7 CPUs, Anandtech's review had the i5-7600K as the fastest CPU, which is barely bested by the i7-7700K here :,4870-7.html Also take note of the i7-4790K, as that's the fastest CPU you can get with your current motherboard, which is somewhere between the i5-7600K and the i7-7700K. IMO, unless a specific game or program really takes advantage of 4 cores over your current 2, you're better off keeping the current CPU, and if necessary, overclock it. It's also best to wait a bit to see the imminent Ryzen reviews, its effect on Intel's prices and which course of action would be best.
  7. Thanks
  8. Stupid question. Is there a way to completely remove the notifications on the new forums ? I'm using Firefox, and everytime I open a page on the forums, I get the popup : " Would you like to receive notifications from this site?" To which I only get the options "Always receive notifications" or "Not now".
  9. Hi all ! I'd like to know if anybody here has had any firsthand experience with delidding a CPU, in particular with regard to the temperature changes they'd noticed after relidding the CPU. See you
  10. You've gotta check this link : It's got all the official videos inspired by the Dutch one. If you've got trouble clicking on the small countries (Looks at Malta...), check the list of countries at the top of the page after selecting a region.
  11. The horror, the horror... Who will be a Kilgore or a Willard for this Kickstarter ?
  12. Is it me or he makes the (n00b) mistake of resting his muzzle against the aperture, so that there's a fair chance to see it protruding, and worse, see the flash when he opens fire ? With time permitting, he should make a rest relatively far from the aperture, so that the muzzle is at least 0.5m away from it IMO.
  13. NEIN ! It is Kaiser Wilhelm II screaming at the lack of MG 08/18 in Ground Branch ! Too much time spent at Verdun, must be in...SHELLSHOCK !
  14. FÜR DAS VATERLAND ! Seems killing 8 people in a single burst with the MG 08/18 helps !
  15. It obviously is ; this game must drive you into shellshock, give you a true PTSD worthy of WW1 ! After 48h of gameplay, I can say that the game has some faults and unpolished elements : - lack of penetration and ricochets, making things such as barbed wire and their wooden posts a semi-cover against full-power rifle bullets - no lean - gamey design choices such as arty strikes ordered by squad (should even say fireteam) leaders and arriving on target about 20 seconds later, or the HP regen - level design and spawn system preventing you from using truly long-range fire ; IMO, the maximum shooting distance in the game is about 200m. - excessive insistence on 1-2 hit instakills, making it quite unreal ; a rifle bullet shot at short range in the foot will kill you instantly. In real life, you'd be surprised by how many hits it may take to quickly kill someone, and some people hit multiple times continued to fight and lived to tell their story. To model this accurately, you'd need to divide the human body into various areas, and assign a probability distribution for the HP damage in function of the bullet, the kinetic energy it carries and the angle at which it strikes the area, making for quite some random lethality. - dubious balancing ; for example, any automatic weapon that doesn't require to be deployed on the ground to be used won't automatically kill in a single hit. But to be fair, except for the MP18/I submachine gun and the M1918 BAR, any automatic weapon needs to be deployed to be effective, in effect buffing substantially the machine guns that only work when deployed, such as the German MG 08 series. And this gets pretty silly when the M1903 Springfield can instagib anything, while the M1918 BAR, firing the same round with a barrel of the same length, has trouble doing so. - sight pictures. Unless the sights are accurately portrayed, which I doubt, you can pretty much say that German weapons have superior sights ; in the game, effective sights are the ones that are quick to align, which means they aren't too small nor have a geometry that can slow your brain from determining where's the center of the front sight, and don't obstruct the field of view. Aperture sights for example are pretty terrible in the game, since the rear sight obscures a significant part of the field of view ; in real life, I doubt the rear aperture would completely obscure the field of view, as they should likely be blurred with the eye focusing on the front post. The worst of them is the Lewis gun, as shown . Also, since weapons sway a bit before aiming, in the stress of combat, it's pretty frequent to be confused for a decisive split second about where's the center of the front sight is when the said sight has 3 vertical blades for some weapons. Ironically, rifles such as the Mauser Gewehr 98 series with rear sights that are actually at the middle of the rifle, may be slower to aim with in real life than ones with rear sights actually at the rear, yet they're perfectly fine for aiming quickly in the game.- the M1918 BAR. It combines the problems of the 3 previous points, and with such a recoil to make automatic fire useless beyond 5-10m. It also seems to be slower to align the sights, which anyway mask a huge portion of your field of view. From some gameplay videos I saw on youtube, it seems it's only effective if you can tame the recoil to make 2 rapid single shots on target or if you can make headshots all the time, in order to take advantage of its 20-rd magazine ; if you don't do that, it's really bad. This terribleness is quite starking when considering it stayed in U.S. service for approximatively 50 years... - forward spawns basically killing you when your squad's NCO is at the frontline ; a system where the forward spawn can't be closer than a certain distance from the frontline would be great for example. - the deserter-shooting feature. Ironically, you can be shot if deciding to advance towards the enemy beyond what HQ decided, or be shot for being too slow to retreat when HQ decides an attack has failed, but nothing happens to you if you hide at the back of the map for the whole game. Some fine-tuning is in order obviously. - black and white screen when suppressed. Although the screen shaking when suppressed (unless I mix it up with explosions rocking the ground) seems pretty realistic, the black and white screen is not. - running speed being a bit too fast - no moment of inertia for the weapons and characters, making twitch-shooting a reality Despite all of this, there's something interesting in this game, probably the way the back-and-forth attack/defense cycle is handled to reflect the attrition warfare of the Western front, the map design, this impression of the futility of attacking against entrenched MG's, how artillery pulverizes any detected infantry and the screams and the gore of agonizing victims. And obviously seeing MissVerstanden getting shot all the time while you're sitting in the back trying to pick enemy targets with your MG 08/18 !