|
Ignoarints posted:Well, if you disable a core that was otherwise running you will reduce the heat. But the heat reduction is from something no longer creating heat, rather than being a heatsink. But I'm really, really really splitting hairs now and will just simply concede now lol. This all just started from me disagreeing with the justification of the presence a IGP as a "heatsink" when disabled It's not a justification, it's an observation. But it really doesn't matter, if you don't think it's a big deal I'm hardly going to waste time banging you over the head trying to convince you man, it's fine. I can't de-lid without ripping my CPU apart since it's Sandy Bridge and still soldered to the IHS, so a true apples to apples isn't possible even assuming they use a similar block structure in how they put the cores and the IGPU together. However, I can tell you that the core adjacent to the unused big block of silicon that is the IGPU on this thing runs a lot cooler, and that when I was initially reading up on others' overclocking experiences, people using Z68 boards got different temperatures for the "cold core" than P67 users. But that's the last I'll say on it, as it matters not even a little bit and we can still be amigos without having to agree as to what the cause of the cold core is, deal? 
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Agreed posted:It's not a justification, it's an observation. But it really doesn't matter, if you don't think it's a big deal I'm hardly going to waste time banging you over the head trying to convince you man, it's fine. I can't de-lid without ripping my CPU apart since it's Sandy Bridge and still soldered to the IHS, so a true apples to apples isn't possible even assuming they use a similar block structure in how they put the cores and the IGPU together. However, I can tell you that the core adjacent to the unused big block of silicon that is the IGPU on this thing runs a lot cooler, and that when I was initially reading up on others' overclocking experiences, people using Z68 boards got different temperatures for the "cold core" than P67 users. But that's the last I'll say on it, as it matters not even a little bit and we can still be amigos without having to agree as to what the cause of the cold core is, deal? Deal!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
yomisei posted:Is any of the Xeon E3 12xx v3 processors going to get a Haswell refresh or is it reserved for the desktop line? I'm wondering because I'd like to get one and don't want to wait for the Broadwell release and consequently needed time for the price to drop for sane consumers to hit it. I'm still perfectly fine with my E3 SB Xeon from 3 years ago and really have no urge to upgrade even considering professional needs. If I need a bunch of hardware, I just get a cloud server first for most stuff these days. Intel's emphasis upon power efficiency over raw power is making the decision easier for me thankfully. Maybe a couple years into the DDR4 changeover may be a decent time to upgrade. Until then, monitors will be the primary productivity upgrade for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I have a 2500k and gtx 680 and have zero reason to upgrade anytime soon. This is the longest I've gone without wanting to upgrade, and I've had more disposable income than ever before. It sort of sucks that I'm finally an adult with my own money to spend on stupid poo poo and the great performance leaps that came with expensive upgrades (like from 4MB to 16MB of RAM) are behind us. I suppose I could buy a £200 mouse or a 120Hz monitor instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
OppyDoppyDopp posted:I have the same set up and can't see myself dismantling this PC for salvageable parts like I've done every 2-3 years in the past. I imagine this machine will still be perfectly usable in a few years and it would be a waste to take it apart. Nice monitor is actually good stuff. That's probably the one thing I'm not happy with. Unfortunately 27" has spoiled me and to get anything nice in 27" is serious fuckin money. But other than the actual case itself monitors outlast computers for me
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:Nice monitor is actually good stuff. That's probably the one thing I'm not happy with. Unfortunately 27" has spoiled me and to get anything nice in 27" is serious fuckin money. But other than the actual case itself monitors outlast computers for me http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Matte-FREE-...=item4d0d1e678e 
KillHour fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
KillHour posted:http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2 Oh yeah I know... Pretty fantastic prices these days
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
3440x1440 is the new hotness
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
japtor posted:3440x1440 is the new hotness Pfft. 3840x2160@60Hz (with Display Port) for <$700? http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-28-In...rds=UHD+monitor http://www.samsung.com/levant/consumer/computers-peripherals/monitors/led-monitor/LU28D590DS/ZN Yes, please!  It's TN instead of IPS, but gently caress it; 4K, 28" monitor for less than 4 figures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Pfft. 3840x2160@60Hz (with Display Port) for <$700?  . Partially cause the price of IPS panels (although I think the Dell 32" is going to be under $1500?) but mostly for actual usability with the current state of software. I'd rather have with 3440x1440 at 1x than 4K with whatever UI scaling, plus I think I kinda like the ridiculously wide ratio for the way I lay windows out on screen.Alternatively I could get a wider desk to fit more than one display, but I like having just one for the most part 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
One ultra wide display is better than two on virtue of no bezel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
sincx posted:Where are the 3840x2400 16:10 4K monitors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
sincx posted:Where are the 3840x2400 16:10 4K monitors? In 2001. I think that's where they'll stay, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Pfft. 3840x2160@60Hz (with Display Port) for <$700? Hope you have the gpu horsepower. I think I'll be waiting for a g-sync model before I move into 4k; it seems like the perfect use for the technology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:In 2001. I think that's where they'll stay, sadly. Its amazing how far back we fell thanks to 16:9
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
go3 posted:Its amazing how far back we fell thanks to 16:9 I'd imagine is more likely due to content getting created at 720p/1080p. Also that monitor cost $18k at launch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I didn't realize the first refresh processors were coming in like 2 weeks. I just noticed, reportedly anyway, the 4670 replacement actually loses a 100 mhz  ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:I didn't realize the first refresh processors were coming in like 2 weeks. I just noticed, reportedly anyway, the 4670 replacement actually loses a 100 mhz Are you sure you're not looking at the 4590, which replaces the 4570?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Looks like the 4690 is 3.3/3.9 where the 4670 was 3.4/3.8, so it loses 100mhz on the "Normal" clock but gains 100 on the "Turbo" side. edit: The 4690K however is 3.5/3.9 beejay fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Perhaps to give people on the fence about the k version a small psychological push to spend more money when they dont need to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/04/intel_uncloaks_nextgen_braswell_atom_64bit_android_kitkat_kernel/ Wasn't there some talk of the 14nm processes being pushed out to 2015? Intel is claiming they are still on track here. Or did I misremember?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Jago posted:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/04/intel_uncloaks_nextgen_braswell_atom_64bit_android_kitkat_kernel/
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:In 2001. I think that's where they'll stay, sadly. My school had a Computer Science lab full of these, attached to high end sun and windows boxes. All people ever used them on was to code or to multi-table online poker; since we didn't really have anyone in the CS program doing graphics research. What a colossal waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:Hope you have the gpu horsepower. Meh, just VSync it, 30Hz is probably not that hard to run. BTW, Dell's 4K TN panel is cheaper deimos fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
deimos posted:Meh, just VSync it, 30Hz is probably not that hard to run. Yeah that's been out longer but even though 30 fps is difficult at 4k, right now anyway, I think its worth paying a little bit more to not be capped at it forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I finally jumped the AMD ship a couple of weeks ago and got myself an i5-4670k. While I'm generally very pleased with just how fast everything runs, I have noticed that I get some really bad stutters/skips when loading (in games particularly). The only hardware that changed was the CPU and motherboard. I also did a fresh Windows install because...well, while I'm sure that just letting the drivers update probably would have worked, there were just too many potential pitfalls. The two factors I'm wondering about are: Intel's "Rapid Storage Technology" - is it worth having? I mean, the SSD obviously won't consume much power no matter what and my mechanical hard drive is idle most of the time unless I really need it. Are there any reports of RST being too aggressive in its attempts to save power or something? Additionally I had implemented some SSD tweaks in Windows (whatever they were, I don't recall) in my prior install but I didn't bother this time because more than a few people have said Win7 recognizes and handles SSDs appropriately all on its own. I can always find a decent guide if there are any tweaks that are really worth implementing though. Panty Saluter fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
I noticed the exact opposite when I got my i5-4670k. I have rapid storage on, and have performed no tweaks of any kind besides enabling or forcing HPET. But that was later on in an effort to reduce DPC latency that is more than likely a symptom of my motherboard. So I would say something is wrong and it shouldn't be doing that (especially if it didn't happen with AMD).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Does Rapid Storage have to be open to function? It seems like it always goes back to default settings when it closes to tray. Then it whines about an unknown error when I try to change Dynamic Storage Accelerator settings. Maybe I should try reinstalling. The driver disc said you needed to install all the Intel utilities for the computer to function properly and I thought I had but you never know...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Does Rapid Storage have to be open to function? It seems like it always goes back to default settings when it closes to tray. Then it whines about an unknown error when I try to change Dynamic Storage Accelerator settings. I have no idea, but I'm not sure it would be the culprit. It is highly recommended not to use driver discs that come with motherboards. I would download the full suite of applicable motherboard drivers from the website (and bios, if its newer). If that doesn't change, start removing ram to see if any single stick makes a difference. Move a game that consistently gives you this problem to another drive and see if it changes
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
The Intel Rapid Storage Technology software is primarily for the benefits of the faster AHCI drivers it installs, you do not need to have the application open. Always make sure to grab the latest drivers from the hardware manufacturer's website, so grab the Intel software from the Intel site. First install the latest Intel Chipset INF drivers, then the Rapid Storage Technology drivers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
I just re-installed pretty much every applicable driver from Gigabyte's site. I also noticed there was a newer BIOS available where the big feature was "supports 4th generation Intel processors" which I think the 4670K belongs to. Either way the upgrade went pretty smoothly and I also found that Dynamic Storage Accelerator was disabled in the BIOS options so I enabled it and now it's not pitching a fit when I try to use the RST software.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Just a note, you want to get the current drivers from the hardware manufacturer's website. The ones on the Gigabyte site are likely old and only offered as a convenience, you'd head to the manufacturer's website for current drivers. For Intel hardware that's the Intel website, for Realtek hardware that's the Realtek website, etc. There may be some devices where drivers are only available from the Gigabyte site, but in general you want to download the latest ones from the manufactuer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
10-4, will do. Is the 4670K a 4th Gen? I'm not up enough to be sure but I think Haswell is still the latest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:10-4, will do. Is the 4670K a 4th Gen? I'm not up enough to be sure but I think Haswell is still the latest. Yes haswell is 4th gen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
The only reason anyone says "Intel Core 4th Generation Processor" is because Intel gets pissed off when people call their products by code names (Haswell, Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, etc.) IIRC, they don't allow OEMs, builders and retailers to advertise machines as "Haswell" machines. Instead, they'd rather use the "[number]th Generation Core" brand name. It still makes some sense though, when someone is pricing a laptop and sees the model number of the processor, they think "bigger number is better number" and would probably choose a 45xx processor instead of a 35xx processor. (Yes, I know that falls apart when you're comparing an Ivy Bridge i7 37xx and a Haswell i3 43xx, but those are going to be priced so dissimilarly that it's an unlikely mistake)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:IIRC, they don't allow OEMs, builders and retailers to advertise machines as "Haswell" machines. A quick search of "Haswell" on newegg shows this not to be true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Chuu posted:A quick search of "Haswell" on newegg shows this not to be true. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/trademarks/codenames.html quote:Third party use of Intel code names I suppose "does not allow" is different than "does not authorize."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
When I think of advertising I usully think of marketing meant to attract me to where I can (see the product description and) buy the product, not the product description at the commercial site itself. Though obviously nothing commercial is untouched by marketing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
gary oldmans diary posted:When I think of advertising I usully think of marketing meant to attract me to where I can (see the product description and) buy the product, not the product description at the commercial site itself. Though obviously nothing commercial is untouched by marketing. Marketing includes anything related to the labeling or packaging of the product, so using the codename in its listing on an online store would definitely violate the rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 17:45
|
|
