|
I personally try to avoid streaming over wireless. You particularly don't want to have the NAS share attached to wireless too - you're cutting your bandwidth in more than half. If at all possible you should just pull a file across and play it locally. Short hops are feasible over a high-quality 802.11ac-type router but it is just an inferior experience all around. In theory this could be fixed with a Type-C box providing power and network connectivity, maybe with powerline ethernet or something. Then you're back down to a single cable.
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In theory this could be fixed with a Type-C box providing power and network connectivity, maybe with powerline ethernet or something. Then you're back down to a single cable. Or a POE NAS (none appear to exist at the moment). You'd have to make your own with a POE splitter E: Synology EDS14 Mini is sold as a POE NAS. NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 10:44 on May 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
Any ideas on when the new Denverton chips might show up or if they even are after Intel gave the ax to some of the Atom lineup. I want to build a lower power NAS/backup system and was considering waiting until the Denverton chips are released.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
They're under the "Apollo Lake" platform now
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Considering I can watch as Facebook makes the system runs slower and slower left open on a single tab as it eats memory for whatever reason. The horribleness of javascript combined with the slow rate of CPU improvement in the past 5 years were the main reasons why I hinged my new PC build this February around using Synergy. My previous gaming PC (Built around an i5-2400 and Geforce 570) is still in service, and now freely spends all its resources running a few hundred chrome tabs (and every other secondary program). Since the i7-6700k is king right now in terms of singlethread performance, but is only quadcore, I really really didn't want this extra performance being wasted on Javascript. My new rig only runs a minimal number tabs, and no extraneous processes. This way I don't have to choose between gaming performance and running lots of extra stuff in the background. I also never need to close a ton of programs before starting a performance demanding game.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Got an HP Prodesk 400 G2 Mini in at work, the i5-6500T CPU. It is a really nice little machine, not quite as small as the NUCs but still very compact. One gotcha I found is that windows 7 will not seem to recognize the USB keyboard/mouse when I boot up, and I think that has something to do with EHCI/xHCI. Ended up installing windows 10 off a usb stick and that worked flawlessly. The drat thing boots so fast, from powering it on to login screen it is faster than the monitor coming out of power saving mode. Crazy!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 08:15
|
|
priznat posted:Got an HP Prodesk 400 G2 Mini in at work, the i5-6500T CPU. It is a really nice little machine, not quite as small as the NUCs but still very compact. Windows 7 does not have native USB 3 drivers so you would need to install drivers for the USB 3 ports if it has those.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Eregos posted:The horribleness of javascript combined with the slow rate of CPU improvement in the past 5 years were the main reasons why I hinged my new PC build this February around using Synergy. My previous gaming PC (Built around an i5-2400 and Geforce 570) is still in service, and now freely spends all its resources running a few hundred chrome tabs (and every other secondary program). Since the i7-6700k is king right now in terms of singlethread performance, but is only quadcore, I really really didn't want this extra performance being wasted on Javascript. My new rig only runs a minimal number tabs, and no extraneous processes. This way I don't have to choose between gaming performance and running lots of extra stuff in the background. I also never need to close a ton of programs before starting a performance demanding game. Why would you ever need a few hundred chrome tabs open? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Eregos posted:The horribleness of javascript combined with the slow rate of CPU improvement in the past 5 years were the main reasons why I hinged my new PC build this February around using Synergy. My previous gaming PC (Built around an i5-2400 and Geforce 570) is still in service, and now freely spends all its resources running a few hundred chrome tabs (and every other secondary program). Since the i7-6700k is king right now in terms of singlethread performance, but is only quadcore, I really really didn't want this extra performance being wasted on Javascript. My new rig only runs a minimal number tabs, and no extraneous processes. This way I don't have to choose between gaming performance and running lots of extra stuff in the background. I also never need to close a ton of programs before starting a performance demanding game.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:This... can't be a serious post, right? Are you new to this place because
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Hell, I don't even have that many chrome tabs - maybe 15-20? And it still manages to take up like 5 gigs of ram. Gmail tabs, for example, are always leaking. Given enough time, they'll use up 1 gb on their own. SA tab tends to be leaky as hell also. It seems that animated gifs are loaded over and over again, and never freed.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Windows 7 does not have native USB 3 drivers so you would need to install drivers for the USB 3 ports if it has those. Interestingly it has a couple of black usb ports which I figured were 2 or lower but plugging mouse & keyboard in those didn't work either. The keyboard worked fine for the safe mode menu and anything cli based (on any of the ports, 2 or 3) before booting to windows but once the gui loaded up, nada. A good excuse to force us to start moving to win 10 anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
go3 posted:yes please dont confuse autistic browsing habits with actual hardware limitations
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Or you can just use Opera Beta with native AdBlocking and Delayed Tab Loading.  But really, web browsing may use some Ram, but with 16-32G being an easy $60-100 investment that should allow you to browse freely while doing whatever the hell you want otherwise. Hell I can RipBot a bluray while playing WarThunder with ~40tabs open in Opera and not experience a hitch. 32G Ram + 6 SB-E Cores works wonders for multitasking still. What puzzled me, is my GF's dad made his own system that looks to be using a Ivy Bridge i5K series, 16G ram, a SSD, and a R7 370, but drat did that PC seem to be choked to all hell just trying to run CODMW3 and doing some sort of video library caching in the background. (You can watch the FPS go from 60, down to 30-40s in the menu, and back up from whatever was running in the background.) I feel it was some issue with Windows 7 and WMP that was screwing him up and I set him up with Plex to see if that would help, but that system really was just running like crap. I blame Windows 7 as I have seen more than 1 install of that just poo poo the bed similar to ways I have seen XP in the past lately. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
priznat posted:Interestingly it has a couple of black usb ports which I figured were 2 or lower but plugging mouse & keyboard in those didn't work either. The keyboard worked fine for the safe mode menu and anything cli based (on any of the ports, 2 or 3) before booting to windows but once the gui loaded up, nada. I think what matters here is that there's only a USB 3.0 controller on the MB and that's what your black usb ports are connected to.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:This... can't be a serious post, right? Why wouldn't it be? The premise is entirely logical - modern videogames tend to be CPU bottlenecked. If you want to have a lot of other programs running without sacrificing performance, a second PC linked with a program like synergy is a logical solution. If you're building a new PC (based on LGA 1151 socket, for instance) its probably worthwhile to keep your old PC around to use as a secondary to run all this other stuff. I actually have only 96 chrome tabs running at present, I've become more disciplined about closing duplicates and unnecessary tabs than I used to be. Back in 2008-9 I'd have opera sessions with 300+ tabs. Obviously this created issues. What really clinched this decision in my mind was I knew I wanted the best singlethread CPU on the market, but I was bothered by the knowledge this extra performance would often be effectively wasted by a lot of javascript crap and other applications I wanted to run in the background. Eventually I hit upon synergy and a 2nd pc as the logical solution. I realized buying the i7-6700k with a single PC setup would be incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Eregos posted:Why wouldn't it be? The premise is entirely logical - modern videogames tend to be CPU bottlenecked. This is pretty much only true if your idea of videogames ends with Civ V and MMOs, and your idea of a CPU starts with "i3". Virtually everything else is GPU limited unless you are content to game at 1080p@60Hz on a $400+ video card for some unknowable reason. And at that point you're already so far past 60FPS that being "CPU limited" is meaningless. Even most MMOs aren't meaningfully CPU bottlenecked once you start talking about high-Hz 1440p or higher resolutions. While you're right that a 6700k is not the best option for gaming + lots of background tasks, unless your background tasks are things like re-encoding your entire media library, options like the 5820k can hang right with a 6700k in gaming performance and still have plenty of oomph left over for your 300 tabs of javascript. Frankly a 6700k by itself would probably be fine as long as you have enough RAM to feed all your tabs, depending on the game and what you mean by "background tasks"; the i5-2400 was not exactly a killer chip, by comparison. Despite its numerical similarity to the 2500k/2600k, it has aged far less gracefully due to the lack of that giggle-inducing overclockability. e; I mean, if you've got a system that works for you, then great! Just saying that what you describe is not necessarily the simplest or most logical way of accomplishing what you've described as your objective. DrDork fucked around with this message at 06:02 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
DrDork posted:This is pretty much only true if your idea of videogames ends with Civ V and MMOs, and your idea of a CPU starts with "i3". Virtually everything else is GPU limited unless you are content to game at 1080p@60Hz on a $400+ video card for some unknowable reason. And at that point you're already so far past 60FPS that being "CPU limited" is meaningless. Even most MMOs aren't meaningfully CPU bottlenecked once you start talking about high-Hz 1440p or higher resolutions. Yeah, RAM is what matters for having lots of tabs open. I don't think Chrome refreshes tabs that aren't active in their window. I have tabs cancer too, and I'm totally fine with a 4690K and 16 GB of RAM. Last time I checked Firefox was much heavier on resources than Chrome, and Adblock Plus was much heavier than uBlock Origin. The 5820K is marginally slower than Skylake in single-threaded performance, but if you can get it to the same clocks the difference is pretty small. And the 5820K overclocks really well. And it blows it away if you can get all the cores into action. The real downside is that it puts out way, way, way more heat especially when you overclock it. It's 143W idle-to-AVX and more like 220-230 when overclocked. I would consider running at least a 240-280mm AIO if not all the way to a triple. Still though it costs the same as a 6700K, so why not?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 06:59
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, RAM is what matters for having lots of tabs open. I don't think Chrome refreshes tabs that aren't active in their window. I have tabs cancer too, and I'm totally fine with a 4690K and 16 GB of RAM. Last time I checked Firefox was much heavier on resources than Chrome, and Adblock Plus was much heavier than uBlock Origin. Well, the X99 mobos are much more expensive in general and a good cooler like a 280mm AIO increases the costs significantly. The 5820k starts making sense if you are going to be doing stuff that really eats CPU time while gaming, like it makes a lot of sense for some game streamers.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Last time I checked Firefox was much heavier on resources than Chrome  Chrome is the biggest hog, by far, these days, of all resources.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
I used to browse the internet with multiple browser windows with 32mb RAM. Now Firefox needs a gigabyte. (yes i know not the same internet).
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Well, the X99 mobos are much more expensive in general and a good cooler like a 280mm AIO increases the costs significantly. X99's aren't much more expensive than the better-built Z170's these days. I mean, sure, you're not gonna find a $60 X99 board, but you also aren't going to be doing much overclocking on a $60 Z170 board, either. The cooler, similarly, is less of a price difference than you'd think, again because if you're going to overclock the 6700k you're going to want to slap a decent cooler on there (albeit you don't need nearly as beefy a one as you do for the 5820k--I've got a H110 on mine and that keeps up well enough, but it makes it work for it. triple would be a bit of overkill). Overall the price difference for the system is probably $100, maybe less depending on what the chip prices and sales are doing on a given day.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Assuming that the information here is accurate: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-e-core-i7-processors-specs-prices-launch/ Broadwell-E looks to offer near zero over Haswell-E, and prices have gone up since Haswell-E. I know expectations were low, but this is a little disappointing given that on the Xeon side Intel continued the trend of improvements in performance, performance per watt, and performance per dollar.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Assuming that the information here is accurate: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-e-core-i7-processors-specs-prices-launch/ Looks like I'm waiting for Skylake-E and/or hoping Kaby Lake has a six-core 'K' option they haven't leaked yet.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Unless they start making 6-core laptop SKUs, you're not going to see non-LGA2011 6-cores. The desktop chips made for LGA 115x are leaky runts.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Assuming that the information here is accurate: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-e-core-i7-processors-specs-prices-launch/ Cool. Just had a Haswell-E workstation bought at work, good to know it will stay up-to-date for an extra Intel processor generation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I guess I'm glad I didn't hold out for the Broadwell-E.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Problem is, Haswell-E will mysteriously be out of stock soon 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Yea even IB-E wasn't that huge of a upgrade on SB-E except they fixed all the stuff they half rear end not quite finished in X79. (Actual Certified PCI-E 3.0 support being the main thing I believe). With X99 being a pretty feature filled setup already, BW-E ended up being just a core count bump and maybe a little power savings. Overclocking will be interesting to find out though. Will that 10 core be able to get anywhere above 3.5Ghz I wonder?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
I'm more interested in what an E5-1650 v4 will clock up to
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Was TSX disabled for Haswell-E too?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Still a bloody thousand dollars for an 8-core cpu! The future sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Lowest end chip still has less pcie lanes. Boo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Second Sun posted:Still a bloody thousand dollars for an 8-core cpu! The future sucks. Not being able to utilize eight cores for sweet fps sucks even more.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Not being able to utilize eight cores for sweet fps sucks even more. Well it looks like vulkan/dx12 might be changing that. Still at the whim of terrible game programmers, but the potential is there.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Given that consoles have like seven cores available for use in games, developers have to figure out ways to make use of them. Should translate to better parallel code on the PC, too, eventually.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 11:03
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Given that consoles have like seven cores available for use in games, developers have to figure out ways to make use of them. Should translate to better parallel code on the PC, too, eventually. Ehh they really don't. Some of the "cores" are regular ol' CPU cores, but the majority, I think half, are graphics processors that only make pictures pretty.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 11:50
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Ehh they really don't. Some of the "cores" are regular ol' CPU cores, but the majority, I think half, are graphics processors that only make pictures pretty. I'm not sure what you mean. PS4 and Xbox One both have AMD Jaguar based, 8 core CPUs. 8 traditional x86-64 cores. Before you even start talking about graphics.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:I'm not sure what you mean. PS4 and Xbox One both have AMD Jaguar based, 8 core CPUs. 8 traditional x86-64 cores. Before you even start talking about graphics. They are? Welp.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
Boiled Water posted:They are? Welp. The CPU part and GPU part are separate, but on the same die.  Really shows you how much space got wasted on sram on the bone.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 13:51
|
|
