Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1372666130473619462?s=19
https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1372723001213526020?s=19

I feel like the Taleb quote is a bit much

And also the game selection doesn't seem so bad?

That's a decent mix of hard to run games, with CSGO representing esports

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

In one of the replies I saw someone say that Valorant should be part of the test suite

Like, I get that it's a popular game, but the thing will also run on a toaster. Who needs to know so badly whether a 6700XT is capable of running it well?

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

Tuxedo Gin posted:

https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1373609792330076167

Well HardwareUnboxed loses my respect for that opinion.

oh boy YIKESAROO

relatedly, Greg Salazar in a recent video pointed out that the Verge guy failed to screw in one of the four brackets on the AIO, so it really was a bad guide, straight up

___

tangentially: one thing I've never quite seen anyone recommend in "how to build" videos is to have a checklist

the second-to-the-last time I tore down my computer to clean it, I completely forgot to reattach the CPU fan to the cooler/fins, and I only realized this when I'd already built everything back up, so I was so obstinate about not wanting to tear it down again I spent the next 20 minutes trying to reattach the fan and plug it in with everything else already inside the case, which was really difficult because one side of the cooler was right up against the top of the case and there was barely any clearance for my fingers to push the CPU brackets around the fins. It probably would have been faster to take it down/out, but I was too hard-headed

so the last time I did another tear down, this time to install a new CPU, I wrote down the order of the parts as I removed them:



and when I was putting it back together, I went from bottom-to-top, checking it off as I went along, to make sure I didn't forget anything

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

I was watching Serve The Home's latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7XJqr44YF0 and it made me think, if I was made of money and had a couple thousand dollars to throw around, could I buy a server rack like that, put in something like an Epyc 7272 with 12 cores/24 threads, and then have all of the server do all of the computing, with laptops effectively as "thin clients" that log-in to the server

this is purely wishful thinking/daydreaming, based mostly on using Moonlight to play games on my laptop with my desktop "hosting" it, but I am kinda curious:

* if I could afford the hardware, would it be possible for a schlub like me to create a set-up where the server is "bisected" such that it'll dedicate six cores/12 threads of the Epyc CPU to my laptop's log-in session, and then the other half to, say, my wife on her session? or four cores each across three users? I know NVidia's GeForce Now servers do that, but I was wondering how much technical knowledge it'd take to pull off

* I also vaguely recall that if you wanted to do this kind of "dividing up" of a single part's resources in the GPU space, you need to get an enterprise-level card, since NVidia (and AMD?) don't offer that feature on consumer level cards. Would I need a Tesla-grade card, or would a Quadro suffice?

* in a professional setting, what would you even use for the remote access? good ol' Windows RDP?

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

Worldshatter posted:

It would be pretty fun to be able to build computers regularly, for all the computer content I consume it's something that only ever makes sense to do every few years, and that's before just upgrading stuff instead.

idk maybe the novelty would wear off after the 15th build of the month because I imagine a lot of my enjoyment from building pcs is the knowledge that I have something cool to set up and use at the end

building old-ish computers is what I do/did when I wanted to get some hands-on practice: you could (used to?) be able to throw together a Bulldozer APU or a Core2Quad system for less than 200 dollars in The Before Times, and when I was done I'd give it away to a relative who needed nothing more powerful than an internet machine

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/2Snacks/status/1381220161483644933

I don't know exactly what's going on here

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

I wasn't sure where to post this, because RAM doesn't belong in the GPU thread, and neither in either of the CPU manufacturer threads, but I am using youtubers as a source, so here goes:

on April 5th, Gamers Nexus reported that RAM manufacturers were reporting that RAM prices were going to increase based on contracts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mrb5YH4ng#t=966s

now Greg Salazar is saying that RAM prices have been rising since the beginning of 2021 to the tune of about 30%: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSwFVxmjA8g, though apparently its been anticipated since January

so yeah NUMBER GO UP

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

I built a PC in July of 2019 for about 520 dollars: a six-core Ivy Bridge Xeon, 16 gigs of DDR3, an RX 580, a small SSD for the OS, and 500 GB platter hard drive. That's all you need for 720p and pretty decent for 1080p and I'd probably still be on it if I didn't need AVX2 for Zoom backgrounds. About three months later I built a system around an Athlon 200GE for about 300 dollars just because I wanted to have a back-up and I began taking a liking to the actual hobby of playing around with hardware. But PC gaming could be cheap.

I guess the worry is that you wouldn't be able to get that kind of value again. I got my RX 580 for ~85 dollars. Nowadays that might not even get you a GT 710, and you might be looking at 300 dollars just for a 1080p-capable card, never mind the rest of the parts.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

SCheeseman posted:

Before the chip shortage a popular option was buying old server-class CPUs, pairing them with dodgy "new" Aliexpress motherboards with recycled server chipsets and slapping in a mid-range video card.

This is exactly what I did.

I really wanted to get one of those Opterons just for the novelty, but as far as I could tell the motherboards only ever had single-channel RAM, which is super bad when combined with the really low clock speeds.

SCheeseman posted:

Or buying a refurbished Dell or HP office PC from 8 years ago and sticking a video card into that if you want to get lazy, though that probably is stretching the definition of a PC "build".

This is was also a nice alternative, though the main issue was that a lot of these PCs were SFF so you either needed an SFF-sized card which cut down on your options or you just left the case open.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

Fame Douglas posted:

Time to sell Linus Tech Tips official Talcum powder, ideal against sweaty hands!

EL TEE TEE STORE DOT COM

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

that reminds me of der8auer taking a Threadripper CPU out, only to have the chip slip out of the plastic carrier frame and land smack dab into the socket - destroying a bunch of pins in one go and rendering the board useless instantly

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

CoolCab posted:

i have to admit when they suggested that i thought "someone, somewhere, has built water cooling out of a faucet somehow."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO0-47to8-E

This actually works shockingly well, and you don't even need a pump or have to worry about a pump failing

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1385035841005780992
https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1385051271451660290

It doesn't seem like this is really a dispute between HWU and GamersNexus, so much as a dispute with the audience/community.

I can understand where GN is coming from: running and testing the CPUs under "Intel guidance" means the CPU will actually meet its TDP rating, and if you let it run without power limits, then it might descend into an arms race with all of the other tinkering you can do with AMD short of actual overclocking.

On the other hand, if most motherboards already run without the power limits right out of the box, then the performance measurements captured by GN aren't so "realistic" or "practical". They're consistent against their own testing methodology across all Intel CPUs, but might not match what the user is actually getting unless they go out of their way to re-enable the limits. To GN's credit, if you watch one of their videos reviewing an Intel CPU then you know that the limits exists and might even think of reenabling it, but in this case HWU has a point in that what they're measuring is the out-of-the-box experience.

I guess what HWU is trying to clarify here is that if overclocking a K-SKU CPU voids your warranty, lifting the power limit does not, which might be important to people who ever need to RMA their CPU.

Having said all that, anyone else have an opinion on this difference between how GN and HWU test Intel CPUs? I guess for me the important part is that the viewer is aware of what's being done, so they can calibrate their expectations and comparisons appropriately.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

My takeaway from that video is:

1. Hardware Unboxed does not actively remove the power limits from their Intel boards - they use out-of-the-box performance, as opposed to Gamers Nexus which (I'm pretty sure) deliberately goes into the board settings to enforce Intel's guidance, regardless of what the board-settings began as. In which case, GN probably wouldn't have found anything of the ordinary from one board to another, even though their approach (again, as they make it clear) technically "leaves performance on the table"

2. You could always run CPUs in VRMs that can't handle it, as in the case of putting a 12-core Zen 2 CPU on an A320, or a 12-core Ryzen 3 CPU on an A520. In either case, the less-capable VRMs are almost certainly going to cause throttling issues, even if you left things "stock", just because AMD likes to do a floating turbo out of the box. I guess the problem with Intel is that a B560 board already isn't assumed to be bottom-of-the-barrel (because it's an H510 that's the lowest tier) and that the 8-core i7-11700 isn't / shouldn't be comparable to a Ryzen 9 3900X.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1396430359760359428

what's this all then? I don't want to watch Linus's podcast

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

okay so the dispute is terminology? that when you say RAM is running at "3600", the unit you should be using is "megatransfers per second", and not hertz, because it's actually 1800 megahertz, and then as double-data rate ram, you get one "transfer" on both the rising and falling edge of the wave, so in 1 hertz you get 2 transfers, ergo 1800 MHz = 3600 megatransfers per second

am I understanding this correct?

buffbus posted:

I listen to the PC Mag podcast and even they use "doctor" when referring to him. I cringe a little every time. The guy is very smart but I can't help but feel this is like an orchestra conductor insisting on being called "maestro" in social situations.

DOCTOR JILL BIDEN

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJVGghP514E

Part 2 of Hardware Unboxed digging into B560 motherboards, and now they've found a board, the Asrock B560M-HDV, with a VRM that's so underpowered that it seems like it can't go over 100 watts of power delivery, which means that putting a 125w part like an i5-11600K will run out of spec. As in, it won't even hit the base clocks that Intel advertises the part at.

The root cause for this seems to be partly Intel's fault: as HWUB explained in a previous video, Intel's "spec" is a wide range - the base clock is deliberately set to be very low so that the TDP can be advertised as very low, and if you cap the power limit and cap the boost clock and boost time, you can technically claim that you're still within that low TDP, which Intel wants so that they're not scaring off customers with a part that looks like it needs a big-rear end cooler (even if they really do)

On the other hand, the top-end of the range of their spec can go up really high, because the parts need to be able to clock up all the way to 5 GHz or whatever, and then run at that level all day, to remain competitive. Intel's trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The problem, as I see/understand it, is that if the motherboard manufacturer looks at this scenario, and says "okay, I'm only going to give the board a VRM good enough to support 65 watts, because these parts are all technically rated for a 65 watt TDP anyway".

If the VRMs are just good enough to run it at the minimum spec, but cannot handle a "no power limits" set-up, that's too bad, but technically still "within spec", just the lower end of that spec, as it were.

But then, if the VRMs are so weak that they can't even handle 125 watts, but then the CPU support page still lists the 125 watt parts as being supported (just because the thing will technically boot and run in some capacity), then you get this situation - where the board can't even run the CPU at the base clock. Intel bears some responsibility for "stretching" their spec as much as they do, but on the manufacturer's side, if you're going to make a motherboard that cannot run some (high-end) parts even at the lower range of what Intel says they should run at, then the boards shouldn't include them as being officially supported.

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 12:10 on May 26, 2021

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

mewse posted:

Does intel have non-K cpus specced at 125w?

nope. all of the non-K parts are rated for 65w, with "T"-model parts rated for 35w (and even lower clocks)

FuturePastNow posted:

Asrock obviously shouldn't advertise compatibility with CPUs its board can't run at their stock clocks.

But also, gently caress Intel for making CPUs that can't hit their advertised clocks with less than 200W.

yeah, it's a problem from both ends - the manufacturer shouldn't list a part as being supported if the VRM is too small to even run at the bare minimum spec, but also Intel's bare minimum spec is really stretching credulity. An 11400F can compete with a 5600X... but only with power consumption that Intel doesn't want to be honest with on the marketing.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

mewse posted:

So.. the B chip mobos were always non overclock, targetted at business use, I don't think it's worthwhile to rage about the VRM can't run flagship enthusiast K series cpus at their fullest. I did get a Z370 mobo from asrock that had a super lovely VRM with no heatsinks, that's more annoying to me than a B series mobo

It's my understanding that it's the H-series motherboards that are even more barebones-basic for business use.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

The cooler in that build is the DeepCool Gamma Archer, which I can recognize instantly because I used to own one of those.

I would NOT recommend that you get one - despite it being cheap and being good enough for ~65w, non-OC'ed parts, the problem is not just that it uses the AMD mounting method of tension brackets that you need to manhandle into clipping in place, but also the construction of the thing is such that you can't really put it on or take it off from the motherboard without removing the fan, which is a huge hassle for something so small.

I'd recommend the DeepCool Ice Edge Mini FS instead for a super-cheap cooler in that price range.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

There are no bad parts, just bad prices

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1402597049619603458

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1403261477511892998

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

hot drat I love me some drama

https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1403306056852385793

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

The MSI thing was about techteamgb: https://www.youtube.com/user/TechteamGB

It actually worked out pretty well for the dude because he managed to get an infusion of viewers (myself included) from people like GN talking about his story. I like his keyboard reviews.

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

That prebuilt seems fairly close to what I have rn so I decided to compare it to what I've paid for my parts:

the CPU, the motherboard, the 16 gigs of RAM, the PSU, the case, and two case fans come out to about 508 USD

an NVMe drive to match the 512 GB that the prebuilt comes with is about 70 USD, increasing the total to 578 USD

the prebuilt uses a 10400F, and I'm using the stock SKU with an iGPU, it looks like the delta for that is only about 10 USD currently, so that brings us back down to 568 USD

that leaves us with 432 USD left over for just the GPU... and the 1660 Super has an MSRP of 229 USD

however, it's also the case that the asking price for a 1660 Super right now (just checking pcpartpicker) is currently 624 USD

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

gradenko_2000
Oct 5, 2010



Lipstick Apathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AOVWCnJYuo

Hardware Unboxed did a comparison between a laptop with an 8-core Zen 3 mobile CPU and a Navi 22 GPU, versus a desktop with an 8-core Zen 3 desktop CPU and a Navi 22 discrete GPU, to examine the value proposition of using a "gaming laptop" as a way of obtaining a computer with a GPU in it

It seems like it's ... close, if you're willing to shackle yourself to the inherent limitations of a laptop form-factor

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply