|
This is the point that I am trying to make. Making a case smaller for the sake of being smaller by restricting what cards may be used in it is absurd.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
HMS Boromir posted:what if you like 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You could probably fit a pair of Fury Nanos in a DAN-A4 style case in a mATX footprint. You could have a nice HDD/SSD mount at the end where the space has been saved. Optionally, though, of course. I agree, the DAN-A4 SFX is as small as you need to go for current platforms and technologies. Smaller would be killing flexibility and functionality for no good space reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:You could have a nice HDD/SSD mount at the end where the space has been saved. Optionally, though, of course. I agree, the DAN-A4 SFX is as small as you need to go for current platforms and technologies. Smaller would be killing flexibility and functionality for no good space reasons. I remember looking at those DAN cases a few years ago I think. What's the noise level like on them, does anyone know? I have a big ugly PC in the living room right now, and while the GPU is new, everything else is like three or four years old, so it's the right time to rebuild it. I just need it to be quiet since my SO has gotten on me about noise levels in the past. I know this isn't the right thread but it's germane to the discussion at hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:I remember looking at those DAN cases a few years ago I think. What's the noise level like on them, does anyone know? I have a big ugly PC in the living room right now, and while the GPU is new, everything else is like three or four years old, so it's the right time to rebuild it. I just need it to be quiet since my SO has gotten on me about noise levels in the past. There's a thread on HardForums where he has been posting updates. He's currently going through RoHS and CE certification right now, which should be finished within a month or so tops. After that he's going to do a kickstarter for a run of 1500 units priced at ~250 EUR shipped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
€250 for a steel lunch box?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:€250 for a steel lunch box? I'm a little unimpressed by the price too, but it's not hugely out of the normal range for a short run of cases. There's another case called the Cerberus that's currently failing to kickstart. Note that it includes a 3M PCIe riser cable, which is literally a $100 part all by itself (drops to ~$70 in volumes of 100+). Besides, I'm actually looking for a "steel lunch box" that I could easily transport to parties. There's a couple offerings but the DAN is without question the smallest case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
So am I right in thinking NVME M.2 ssd's invalidate a lot of the design assumptions made for these cases? Like, no drive bay, even for 2.5" units, feels like large savings to me. You could go cpu heatsink top left, psu top right, gpu along the entire bottom or some such. I'm kinda surprised these tiny ssds haven't really taken off yet. Maybe it's just too early still.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Really small SSDs are still pretty expensive and usually in computer that are stationary it's not a problem to provide space for a 2.5" drive or larger. Hell in laptops which may well be moved all the time it's not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:So am I right in thinking NVME M.2 ssd's invalidate a lot of the design assumptions made for these cases? Like, no drive bay, even for 2.5" units, feels like large savings to me. You could go cpu heatsink top left, psu top right, gpu along the entire bottom or some such. I'm kinda surprised these tiny ssds haven't really taken off yet. Maybe it's just too early still. It's a win for ultrabooks and other super-thin laptops but 2.5" drives really aren't all that big when considering the scale of any sort of mITX-or-larger formfactor. mITX cases don't really have "drive bays", unlike a laptop everything comes apart and you can attach pieces directly to a skeleton. The amount of excess room needed for component/cable clearance vastly exceeds the amount of space needed to physically hold the drive in place once everything's mounted. You leave some cables dangling, slide the drive into a notch in the frame, screw it down/plug it in, and you're done. Right-angle connectors are available if you need them, I find they often help reduce space utilization. But overall it's usually much more difficult to route the ATX power connector umbilical than to snake a SATA cable around. mITX builds are super tight and not much fun, but you know that going in. 1.8" and MO-297 SSDs have been around for a while too, haven't taken off for the same reason. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I have a m.2 SSD. Not a single SATA cable to disturb the feng shui.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:I have a m.2 SSD. Not a single SATA cable to disturb the feng shui. On the other hand, the usual bottom-mounted placement means swapping out a system disk now involves dismounting your motherboard. Topside mounting isn't real convenient either, plus topside board space is already at a premium. If it's a PCIe model then you can't run SLI without stepping up to an X99 based system (or other -E class product). And right now M.2 is a confusing mess of incompatible sizes and connectors. "M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2260/2280"? Yeah, ok nerd, I have an HP, does it fit HP? But yeah, PCIe models are faster than SATA can deliver and no cables is convenient. It'll probably be the way forward for most people once the standards converge on a few physical interfaces, and you're no longer paying a premium for it. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:On the other hand, the usual bottom-mounted placement means swapping out a system disk now involves dismounting your motherboard. Topside mounting isn't real convenient either, plus topside board space is already at a premium. If it's a PCIe model then you can't run SLI without stepping up to an X99 based system (or other -E class product). And right now M.2 is a confusing mess of incompatible sizes and connectors. "M.2 Socket 3, with M Key, type 2260/2280"? Yeah, ok nerd, I have an HP, does it fit HP? The premium won't go away until they can fit chips with higher density. When I opened that thing up, I was surprised at its size even after reading the dimensions online. It is practically smaller than the size of a stick of gum. It works great for a minimalist mITX with one PCIe slot (so no SLI/Crossfire even if you wanted it). The four lanes of PCIe really are put to great effect, but the casual user isn't going to see a major usability difference between this and SATAIII SSDs given that there are so few non-prosumer applications that need super-speedy I/O. Speaking of speedy I/O, what ever happened to SATA Express?! DOA?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
A Bad King posted:The premium won't go away until they can fit chips with higher density. When I opened that thing up, I was surprised at its size even after reading the dimensions online. It is practically smaller than the size of a stick of gum. Yeah IMO the big benefit from SSDs is actually eliminating latency. A good fast drive is even nicer, but even a slow-ish SSD is going to be loads faster than a spinning disk. I hosed my Windows build up somehow and I am rebuilding it on a Samsung 830 I had laying around. Nowadays that's slower than 75% of drives on the market, but I don't really notice a whole lot of difference between that and my 850 Evo, and that's still a SATA drive, not M.2. The real problem is that consumer processors don't have enough PCIe lanes. Using a couple lanes shouldn't be a big deal, but most chipsets only give you 16 and SLI needs at least a pair of slots running at 8 lanes each. The same thing applies to literally everything else that uses PCIe lanes - Thunderbolt, USB 3.1, etc. SATA Express just got whammied by the fact that there are so many competing standards out there at the moment. SATA, mSATA, M.2, PCIe, USB 3.0, USB 3.1, USB Type-C, and Thunderbolt all overlap at least some of its functionality. Also M.2 exposes 4 lanes vs the 2 lanes for SATA Express, and the current generation of SSDs already outperform 2 lanes. So other connectors also do it better. Right now there's not a whole lot of devices that use it and there probably never will be. Like maybe we get some breakouts for the channels it carries but I can't see much else. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
It's crazy to think that as fast as flash SSDs are improving Optane is going to come along and blow everything out of the water, these are some interesting times for storage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I have been looking at getting a new phone, as my current one is presently a piece of dogshit that reboots more times in a week than I have in two years of ownership, post Lollipop upgrade. That said, I am eyeing the new Snapdragon 820 processor, and how Qualcomm seems to be moving away from their octocore big.LITTLE design, in favor of a quadcore design. This got me thinking, where would AMD be now if they had gone with, over the past five years, with strong single-threaded performance with SMT, and an equal number of performance and low-power cores, probably not to exceed a total of four? Wouldn't AMD still be competing strongly in the notebook and portable market as a result?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
the kerfluffle from the 00s with intel inflicted a lot of OEM inertia that lasts to this day, so they still wouldn't be much into the mobile space although it would have been better than it is now. they'd have retained a lot of datacenter marketshare though instead of begrudgingly moving from magny-cours to annoyingly slightly higher maintenance xeons as much poo poo we'd like to give construction cores though they seemed to have shaped it into a very good low power architecture, so it might survive as a low-cost chip ala Atom if they aren't just making mini zen cores for that. Anime Schoolgirl fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the kerfluffle from the 00s with intel inflicted a lot of OEM inertia that lasts to this day, so they still wouldn't be much into the mobile space although it would have been better than it is now. As far as we know AMD is only doing big server cores and slightly smaller cores for laptop/desktop. Excavator+ may not be dead for 14nm or AMD thinks they can get K12 to outperform smaller Zen, which isn't impossible. Stoney seems to be pretty drat good, easily trouncing single threaded performance of Atoms while having a very similar TDP, and can match Pentiums/Celerons if not beat them. It falters in multithreaded, but a die shrink should allow it to double up on logical cores and improve overall performance. However if AMD is able to get Zen to be Stoney Ridge +40% increase in singlethreaded for much the same cost, I don't see CMT surviving at all since that's definitely trading blows with Core M, and if AMD can deliver Core M performance in vastly cheaper products I don't see even contrarevenue stopping at least modest AMD gains in mobile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
What's the over/under on Zen being a good upgrade from Sandy Bridge? I can see myself going back to AMD if Zen's IPC is close to Sky Lake and the price/overclocking provides good value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
sincx posted:What's the over/under on Zen being a good upgrade from Sandy Bridge? I can see myself going back to AMD if IPC is close to Sky Lake and the price/overclocking provides good value. The most recent scuttlebutt is that Zen is going to be matching or coming close to Broadwell, so yes considering all the new features it'd bring over a Q/H/P6X chipset. YMMV, but since AMD is doing everything on a single socket (AM4) this means their HEDT and mainstream parts will share boards, unlike Intel segregating on 2011 and 115X boards. This can offer a pretty easy entry into an AMD system and vastly more upgrade potential without serious changes in that system, as all future AMD processors will share the AM4 socket (which is rumored to a rather nuts 1331 pin µpga within similar dimensions as AM3+). So it's entirely possible an AMD Zen system, even considering upgrades, will have a lower cost higher longevity compared to Intel, and it's likely what AMD is hoping to aim for to differentiate themselves and how they can be a performance+price alternative. Also rumored is 140W support for AM4 boards despite AMD saying 95W TDPs, so either they're not getting the performance they expected, there are going to be powerful server chips for mainstream, and/or you can overclock the poo poo out of Zen. Broadwell perf+Sandy overhead feels like fantasy so I'm expecting to be underwhelmed a bit. Otherwise just run the Sandy system into the ground and upgrade to whatever is best at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:The most recent scuttlebutt is that Zen is going to be matching or coming close to Broadwell, so yes considering all the new features it'd bring over a Q/H/P6X chipset. YMMV, but since AMD is doing everything on a single socket (AM4) this means their HEDT and mainstream parts will share boards, unlike Intel segregating on 2011 and 115X boards. This can offer a pretty easy entry into an AMD system and vastly more upgrade potential without serious changes in that system, as all future AMD processors will share the AM4 socket (which is rumored to a rather nuts 1331 pin µpga within similar dimensions as AM3+). So it's entirely possible an AMD Zen system, even considering upgrades, will have a lower cost higher longevity compared to Intel, and it's likely what AMD is hoping to aim for to differentiate themselves and how they can be a performance+price alternative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Anyone know anything about this guys history?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
VP of engineering for Broadcom's embedded processor department during development of their 20-core 64-bit ARMv8 chips, previously nine years at Intel as a principal engineer working on the P5, P6, and the Itanium platform. Going mostly by his LinkedIn here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:VP of engineering for Broadcom's embedded processor department during development of their 20-core 64-bit ARMv8 chips, previously nine years at Intel as a principal engineer working on the P5, P6, and the Itanium platform. Going mostly by his LinkedIn here. I guess I was too general (thanks for the info though), but rather whether this guy is good at all. Like, trying to read tea leaves on whether this guy coming in is good for AMD or a potential plunder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:I guess I was too general (thanks for the info though), but rather whether this guy is good at all. Like, trying to read tea leaves on whether this guy coming in is good for AMD or a potential plunder. I doubt anyone here is all that qualified to make such an assessment. I doubt he's bad for them, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Hey folks currently looking at building a mITX DOTA2 box and it has come to my attention a single AMD A10 7870K on its loving own i.e. without a dGPU will probably take care of things at 60fps on high at 1360x768 (which is my monitor's native resolution). Now I've had problems with integrated graphics actually supporting that odd rear end resolution but I hear the A10 supports the CCC drivers so I was wondering whether someone could confirm this as a supported resolution. Thanks. NB Why does everyone keep telling me to get an Intel CPU? Edit: holy poo poo this thing is freesync compatible too! KingEup fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Seems to work, I have a 290 though:
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Seems to work, I have a 290 though: Yep, I know that already but I'm interested in the integrated graphics only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Hey folks currently looking at building a mITX DOTA2 box and it has come to my attention a single AMD A10 7870K on it's loving own i.e. without a dGPU will probably take care of things at 60fps on high at 1360x768 (which is my monitor's native resolution). Modern Intel CPUs have similar or more powerful GPUs available on some product lines:  Your usage case of "playing games, very low budget, no dGPU needed" is AMD's last bastion, but its worth noting that a $110 Intel i3-6100 is going to be a faster, quieter, more power efficient CPU with an iGPU that trades blows with the A-series. If you wanna buy AMD though, go right ahead, you'll just be potentially bottlenecking yourself if you get a dedicated GPU down the line. Dota 2 should run reasonably well on basically any modern integrated graphics, I've played it on a $39 Celeron and it was fine at 720p. Twerk from Home fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:its worth noting that a $110 Intel i3-6100 is going to be a faster, quieter, more power efficient CPU with an iGPU that trades blows with the A-series. Is the i3-6100 faster than the i5 in this review? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
No idea how fast the i3-6100 actually is but here's some benchmarks of the i7-6700K losing to the A10. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/20 I think you should look at getting one of the Pentium dual cores and either a GTX 750 or a R7 250. It'll be faster and leave you an avenue to upgrade down the road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:I think you should look at getting one of the Pentium dual cores and either a GTX 750 or a R7 250. It'll be faster and leave you an avenue to upgrade down the road. Then it won't fit in this: http://www.mini-box.com.au/M350%20Universal%20Mini-ITX%20enclosure.html which I plan on mounting to the back of the monitor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Then it won't fit in this: http://www.mini-box.com.au/M350%20Universal%20Mini-ITX%20enclosure.html which I plan on mounting to the back of the monitor. That case says its only for CPUs with less than TDP of less than 65W with a fan. The A10-7870K is a 95W CPU.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:No idea how fast the i3-6100 actually is but here's some benchmarks of the i7-6700K losing to the A10. Well where is the chestnut above getting is evidence for the i3 being faster?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Well where is the chestnut above getting is evidence for the i3 being faster? Currently Intel's single threaded performance is significantly better than AMD's. Same for power consumption, comparable Intel chips run much cooler than their AMD equivalents. They had the double misfortune of pursuing an architecture that's just not very good at a time when Intel made a huge jump in efficiency. It's kinda the opposite of the Athlon XP/Pentium 4 era. That said an A series sounds fine for your use case, I'd only worry about heat in that tiny case (95w part).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
pienipple posted:Currently Intel's single threaded performance is significantly better than AMD's. Same for power consumption, comparable Intel chips run much cooler than their AMD equivalents. Erm... that seems irrelevant if the AMD CPU runs the game better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Hey folks currently looking at building a mITX DOTA2 box and it has come to my attention a single AMD A10 7870K on its loving own i.e. without a dGPU will probably take care of things at 60fps on high at 1360x768 (which is my monitor's native resolution). Well, pienipple posted:Currently Intel's single threaded performance is significantly better than AMD's. Same for power consumption, comparable Intel chips run much cooler than their AMD equivalents. Yeah AMD's current processor lines are difficult to recommend. But, if you're on a tight budget, I can understand why you are looking at them. Did you say what budget you're working with? (Although really this is becoming a conversation for the parts picking thread). If I had a bit of budget and tight space, I think I would be looking at something like this. Even tighter space, I would be looking at something like this. I think we are all rooting for AMD to pull a rabbit out of the hat with their new designs starting early 2017 (end of this year in servers).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Erm... that seems irrelevant if the AMD CPU runs the game better. The issue is the amount of heat from the AMD APU being radiated into that tiny case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 11:47
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Erm... that seems irrelevant if the AMD CPU runs the game better. AMD CPUs tend to have better integrated graphics performance. If you have a dGPU then they're next to worthless, as even a haswell i3 will outpreform just about every AMD CPU on market. So AMD CPUs are fine... if you're not buying a dGPU and can handle the massive power requirements. Otherwise I can't think of a usecase that makes sense for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 11:48
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:AMD CPUs tend to have better integrated graphics performance. If you have a dGPU then they're next to worthless, as even a haswell i3 will outpreform just about every AMD CPU on market. Libre Office Calc users who handle a lot of data that can be sped up with HSA 1.0? Or other HSA 1.0 capable programs, but that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head; then again, folks who need the parallelism will often just recode for CUDA and spend the grant money on two Titans GTX's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2016 12:03
|
|