|
If anyone is on the fence now is the time to buy a 1950x, EBAY has 20% off electrical goods Scarecow fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Aug 18, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Scarecow posted:If anyone is on the fence now is the time to buy a 1950x, EBAY has 20% off electrical goods Also in Europe? I don't use Ebay that much and have no clue where you even see what deals they are running.......
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:If anyone is on the fence now is the time to buy a 1950x, EBAY has 20% off electrical goods
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
woops sorry looks to be Australian ebay only https://www.ebay.com.au/
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:it might be 2T at 2933, since ryzen by default demands 1T memory timings unless you update the bios to one with a newer AGESA version (not all of the mobos out now have it although new ones are shipping with it)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
AMD Zen is different from other platforms in which it tries a multitude of ram timings prior to boot (you can configure the number of attempts) and then uses whatever works. It might take 3+ tries to get 2933+ running. You can set 15-17-17-35 and get 16-17-17-35 like you saw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
I think it's been mentioned a few times, but Ryzen prefers even-numbered CAS latency. 12, 14, 16, etc. So you'll have to figure out if you're better off with tighter timings or higher frequency, usually frequency wins though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
I am thinking about ordering the following parts and I was just curious if anyone sees anything wrong with them. It's been awhile since building my own system:code:
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Make sure its 3200cl14 or better ram And since its quad channel get 32gb
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Scarecow posted:Make sure its 3200cl14 or better ram I thought the FlareX stuff was especially tested with the new AMD chips. And they are 4 sticks of 8GB, so it is 32 GB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:
You could save a little money by getting the EVO instead of the pro. You'll never notice the difference between the two unless you run SSD benchmarks for a living.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:I thought the FlareX stuff was especially tested with the new AMD chips. And they are 4 sticks of 8GB, so it is 32 GB. Looks good on qvl. https://gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-16gfx
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Krailor posted:You could save a little money by getting the EVO instead of the pro. You'll never notice the difference between the two unless you run SSD benchmarks for a living. The pro is much faster if you do enough writes to overrun the SLC buffer.. it is quite possible to notice the difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
redeyes posted:The pro is much faster if you do enough writes to overrun the SLC buffer.. it is quite possible to notice the difference. Sure, but a lot of people aren't going to do that and don't need it for a corner case they'll probably never run into.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
redeyes posted:The pro is much faster if you do enough writes to overrun the SLC buffer.. it is quite possible to notice the difference. What kind of filesize threshold are we looking at here? I'm a nerd and l don't like it when my hard drives slack off when I need them the most (ie: large file transfers that take forever because they're already large file transfers) edit: yeah sorry this is the AMD thread. But thanks cause that answers my question, not a huge difference but some use cases for it. Eyochigan fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
The "SLC Cache" is several gigabytes in size, iirc. A quick googling suggests the 128gb drives have 3GB of cache, the 500gb has 8gb, and the 1TB has 12gb. No idea if that's accurate, I'd ask the SSD thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:The "SLC Cache" is several gigabytes in size, iirc. A quick googling suggests the 128gb drives have 3GB of cache, the 500gb has 8gb, and the 1TB has 12gb. No idea if that's accurate, I'd ask the SSD thread. Yeah that sounds about right. The larger the drive, the more SLC cache.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
I always thought the Pro versions were a little more durable, mind you this is from the Samsung 840 days that I have this info, I don't know if it is still relevant with the M2 versions. I do have to say that both of my 840 Pro 256s are still trucking along, never had a problem with them. Filthy scum posted:Looks good on qvl. QVL?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
The Pro is a lot more durable. Whether that matters or not depends on what you do. I'd get a bigger capacity evo over a pro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:I always thought the Pro versions were a little more durable, mind you this is from the Samsung 840 days that I have this info, I don't know if it is still relevant with the M2 versions. Click the QVL tab on that page. QVL = Qualified Vendor List, it contains all the motherboards that G.Skill can verify they've tested that RAM at the DOCP (preset memory profile) speeds listed on the packaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Cool, that makes sense. Thanks for the info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:AMD Zen is different from other platforms in which it tries a multitude of ram timings prior to boot (you can configure the number of attempts) and then uses whatever works. It might take 3+ tries to get 2933+ running. You can set 15-17-17-35 and get 16-17-17-35 like you saw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
the last time i looked, the pro had a 5 year warranty and the evo was 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:the last time i looked, the pro had a 5 year warranty and the evo was 2 It's actually 5 years on the EVO line and 10 on the Pro line. My 128gb 840 Pro only has 1340 days powered on so I guess if I don't like these reallocated sectors I can get an RMA sometime in the next 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Sidesaddle Cavalry posted:Unless you're constantly writing terabytes of data to your Samsung SSDs every day, you're not going to see any Samsung SSD die unless there's been some catastrophic failure/mishap that would be covered under warranty. SSDs are hilariously over-provisioned. That test from 2014? Link. showed that it took ~300TB of wear on the smaller 840 EVOs before hash checks started failing, yet didn't fully die until somewhere around 800TB (!). They started in June 2014, and it took until March 2015 for the last of the drives to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Yup. The german heise c't magazine did a similar test, 850 Pros lasted 2.1-9.1 Petabytes written, a 750 Evo lasted 1.2 PBW. It's going to be hard for the average consumer to hit those limits, even with Spotify going rogue and thrashing 40GB/day into its cache we're looking at a lifetime of over 80 years in the case of the 750 Evo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
My 850 EVO died in 2 years never buying Samsung again. Sticking with Kingston or Corsair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:My 850 EVO died in 2 years never buying Samsung again. Sticking with Kingston or Corsair. Baby, bathwater etc.? Or am I falling for  ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
100% baby, bathwater, burn the house down and salt the earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Wirth1000 posted:My 850 EVO died in 2 years never buying Samsung again. Sticking with Kingston or Corsair. You must mean stick with Intel or Western Digital (sandisk) since Kingston and Corsair don't make NAND. redeyes fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
eames posted:It's going to be hard for the average consumer to hit those limits, even with Spotify going rogue and thrashing 40GB/day into its cache we're looking at a lifetime of over 80 years in the case of the 750 Evo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
The coders at Spotify should be forced to use a low end netbook with a spinner until they fix that garbage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I thought it was fixed a long time ago?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I thought it was fixed a long time ago? It (supposedly) was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
It was never really writing 40 GB a day, due to how disk caches work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
I only used that as an example because I couldn't think of any other average computer user workload that generates 40GB of writes per day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
eames posted:I only used that as an example because I couldn't think of any other average computer user workload that generates 40GB of writes per day. Using it as a cache drive can thrash it pretty hard, depending on how much turnover it's getting. ShadowPlay can also generate a large volume of writes if Instant Replay is enabled, since it's basically writing at its capture rate any time you are playing a game (or any time the computer is running, if Desktop Capture is enabled). It's not going to kill a drive by itself, but all these things do add up, and if you throw in some 10x-100x write amplification (small random writes, or running a drive that isn't sufficiently overprovisioned very close to full) we are now talking about enough data to potentially burn up the flash within a relevant timeframe (years). I wouldn't put major effort into minimizing writes but if there's obviously stupid things that are spamming writes then it's worth taking 30 seconds to turn them off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It was never really writing 40 GB a day, due to how disk caches work. Can you elaborate on this, as it seemed like there was a decent bit of confirmation that it was continuously overwriting locally stored files. I'm honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It was never really writing 40 GB a day, due to how disk caches work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Yet Samsung Magician noticed over here. Yeah I checked a friends computer and it was in fact writing way way too much. Maybe the new metro app fixes it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 00:12
|
|