|
PCjr sidecar posted:All the way out in PCIe land? Pass, I don't have all day. Buy some Optane DIMMs Mr. Moneybags Actually Optane DIMMs backed by Optane SSDs for thoroughness. Oh and some Optane cache for your cold storage. Buy Optane. WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 13, 2019 |
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Buy some Optane DIMMs Mr. Moneybags Well, someone owns intel stock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Speaking of other parts of the Intel empire, it took a little dip today from the Apple / Qualcomm trial. Seems like they're effectively propped up now in terms of the baseband business by Apple needing them, but as Apple stands up its own modem team...wonder what Intel will do with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
movax posted:Speaking of other parts of the Intel empire, it took a little dip today from the Apple / Qualcomm trial. Seems like they're effectively propped up now in terms of the baseband business by Apple needing them, but as Apple stands up its own modem team...wonder what Intel will do with that. What a timely question. Intel to Exit 5G Smartphone Modem Business, Focus 5G Efforts on Network Infrastructure and Other Data-Centric Opportunities
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Intel has been dialing back cellular baseband stuff for a while now. Everything is Qualcomm now unless you make your own processors
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Yeah part of the Apple/Qualcomm settlement is a "multi year" supply deal for modems, which if it matches the 6 year cross licensing agreement, is a long one. Rip Intels modem business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:What a timely question. lmao apple must be eating poo poo right now, even with the Qualcomm agreement. I wonder if apple picks up all those 5g engineers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
Good riddance, won't miss Intel's crappy cell modems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Jesus H. Christ. It's like Intel wants to lose more marketshare to AMD. morecores.png
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 12:07
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
They should stop making cable modem chips next, Puma 6/7 are terrible (unless you like huge latency spikes).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
Lambert posted:They should stop making cable modem chips next, Puma 6/7 are terrible (unless you like huge latency spikes). Lord, I had a modem that had one of those. It was awful. I switched to a CM1000 and my Overwatch rank went up like 250 point right away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Lambert posted:They should stop making cable modem chips next, Puma 6/7 are terrible (unless you like huge latency spikes). I had no idea they were still in that business,  Figured cable modem chipsets having mostly become mature were a race to the bottom.Use the money not being spent on modems to do something with Altera's IP, jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
movax posted:I had no idea they were still in that business, They got in on a generation or two of Docsis 3.0 modems from a few people (Arris and Netgear were the two larger companies I think) and those modems had problems. I bought a sb6190 to upgrade from an old old modem and boy was that a mistake that wasn't readily apparent til a year or so later when I started playing multiplayer games a lot more
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
MagusDraco posted:They got in on a generation or two of Docsis 3.0 modems from a few people (Arris and Netgear were the two larger companies I think) and those modems had problems. I bought a sb6190 to upgrade from an old old modem and boy was that a mistake that wasn't readily apparent til a year or so later when I started playing multiplayer games a lot more They're in DOCSIS 3.1 modems as well (Puma 7), and those seem to suffer similar issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
movax posted:I had no idea they were still in that business, Yeah this is really odd especially because they were also hot and heavy for xilinx at one point as well so you’d think they had some major plans for fpgas! Fpgas with hard/soft x86 cores would be interesting especially as a way to migrate existing x86 linux users etc. Even if they go with older cpu variants..
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Intel's now offering a few 1-socket 6200-series Cascade Lake "U" SKUs at (roughly) half price. Thanks AMD. Thamd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:Intel's now offering a few 1-socket 6200-series Cascade Lake "U" SKUs at (roughly) half price. They are already dead in the <$200 DIY consumer CPU market so The 1600 non-X is now going for $80 at Microcenter and all Intel has at that price are Pentium Golds with 1/3 the cores and threads Palladium fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Palladium posted:They are already dead in the <$200 DIY consumer CPU market so And microcenter has the i5 9400F and ryzen 5 2600x at $150 vs $160 right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And microcenter has the i5 9400F and ryzen 5 2600x at $150 vs $160 right now. I mean, i would take the 9400F in that matchup for gaming. HardwareUnboxed just did a comparison between the two and they were pretty close, but the F was a bit faster even with the X overclocked and the F locked to 65w in the bios.  I also don't think I would recommend a 1600 at any price anymore. Not that its bad, but with CPU cost being such a small part of a gaming computer build, you would likely be much better served with those 9400F/2600X options. Cygni fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
Why, you're limited to slow ram and can't overclock at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why, you're limited to slow ram and can't overclock at all. Ram speed isnt limited on Z series boards, which you can get for nearly H series board prices now. Sub $100 easy, and ~$70 on sale. Those also tend to be the boards that let you uncork the TDP (although that seems to be showing up down the stack lately)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Why, you're limited to slow ram and can't overclock at all. Run OBS on both and see how much of that insignificant FPS boost on the Intel without OBS matters now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I mean, i would take the 9400F in that matchup for gaming. HardwareUnboxed just did a comparison between the two and they were pretty close, but the F was a bit faster even with the X overclocked and the F locked to 65w in the bios. I certainly wouldn’t. You’re going to spend more on a motherboard unless you limit yourself to locked boards (and thus only terrible upgrade options), multi core performance is much worse which may matter for some games down the road, and AM4 will have drop-in support for Zen 2 and probably 3 when your processor starts feeling anemic. E: 6/6 will start having minimum frametime issues before 6/12, too. Stickman fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Apr 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I certainly wouldn’t. You’re going to spend more on a motherboard unless you limit yourself to locked boards (and thus only terrible upgrade options), multi core performance is much worse which may matter for some games down the road, and AM4 will have drop-in support for Zen 2 and probably 3 when your processor starts feeling anemic. Newegg sells a 1600 and a x370 board for $135. With the ~$200 or cheaper GPUs that these 1600 systems will typically be paired with, one will be still be bottlenecked by the GPU way before the 1600 does. The value proposition for first-gen Ryzens was a lot more dubious at release pricing, but at clearance prices they are undoubtedly fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 09:21
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I certainly wouldn’t. You’re going to spend more on a motherboard unless you limit yourself to locked boards (and thus only terrible upgrade options), multi core performance is much worse which may matter for some games down the road, and AM4 will have drop-in support for Zen 2 and probably 3 when your processor starts feeling anemic. The 2600x also comes bundled with actually usable cooling which is a pretty big deal when the budget's tight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
To each their own... I would still rather have the 9400F. I've got a 1700 and 8700 sitting next to me so buy what you want man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Cygni posted:To each their own... I would still rather have the 9400F. I've got a 1700 and 8700 sitting next to me so buy what you want man. I mean, I guess? But if we’re seriously discussing of the pros and cons of a similarly-priced 9400f vs 2600x for gaming, I don’t see how the 9400f comes out ahead in anything except very specific use case where the reduced power consumption/heat generation is important. That said, the best advice for buying CPUs right now is “wait two months if it’s possible”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Lambert posted:They're in DOCSIS 3.1 modems as well (Puma 7), and those seem to suffer similar issues. I had one and never had issues like what everyone else reported but I didn’t play anything terribly competitive or that twitchy. I was on Comcast Xfinity for maybe a bit over a year and never had an issue with the line or anything. Maybe it did well because I replaced the gateway with an Edgerouter and I shoved a coaxial booster onto the coax in the house?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I certainly wouldn’t. You’re going to spend more on a motherboard unless you limit yourself to locked boards (and thus only terrible upgrade options), multi core performance is much worse which may matter for some games down the road, and AM4 will have drop-in support for Zen 2 and probably 3 when your processor starts feeling anemic. I was going to post something along these lines then realized that if its close to a tie most people are probably going to give it to Intel because this is the Intel thread. I think Intel isn't a clear win until what $300?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
I didnt wanna get into the fight cause i know some people get really into it and I dont think it really warrants that much arguing, but my opinion is that when you actually build a computer, a lot of the comparison points people make just arent that relevant. I just built a midtier AM4 computer for a family member, and while there are dirt cheap AM4 boards... uh, you don't want those. If you went through the AM2, AM2+, AM3 etc era, you know that just because AMD says a certain socket is going to be backwards compatible, it doesn't mean the actual boards are ever going to get those updates (i'm still mad at Gigabyte, but Phenom II for lyfe). So if you want to leave the Zen2 window open, I wouldn't count on anything older than B450 getting updates, honestly, and especially not A series boards (which you shouldn't buy for other reasons). And even if B350 boards get support, you can bet that many of the nice-to-haves in Zen2 won't be functional. So if we are now limited to B450 and up, the cheapest B450 boards use Realtek LAN (ugh), ALC887 audio (ugh), and no USB 3.1G2 (ugh). I personally wouldn't bother with those boards just to cut $20 even on cheap builds, but you may, its just a preference thing. If you step up to boards with Intel LAN and better audio PHYs, you are... essentially right at the cost of comparable H270/Z370 boards with the same features. The intel platform will be faster with cheaper ram, too, although 3400+ stuff is getting cheaper these days. In the end to me, the big debate is 6/6 with fast threads or 6/12 with slower threads in year 3, year 4, year 5. If you aren't running a rendering box for work (lets be honest, nearly nobody is), or a big twitch streamer (lest be honest, nearly nobody is), I'm personally pessimistic that a huge thread explosion is incoming. So the 9400F with a ~9% gaming advantage today compares favorably to me. It all comes down to what you think the future is, and what you want to do. I personally don't think 4k gaming is going to dominate any time soon, and I personally think 1080p/1440p high refresh will continue to be the driver for the next few years. I also don't think 8+ thread games are coming any time soon either. But you may have a different prediction. Both platforms are good, and are obviously price fixed to each others performance. Buy whatever you think is good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:I had one and never had issues like what everyone else reported but I didn’t play anything terribly competitive or that twitchy. I was on Comcast Xfinity for maybe a bit over a year and never had an issue with the line or anything. Maybe it did well because I replaced the gateway with an Edgerouter and I shoved a coaxial booster onto the coax in the house? I did a lot of testing on mine, when I was having the issue. I had the issue with both a Mikrotik 2011 and a Unifi USG Pro. The symptom was that once ever 1 to 3 minute, you would get latency spikes of 100 to 200 extra ms for just a brief moment. You wouldn't drop packets, and I never really saw it effect throughput. The problem was 100% in the cable modem and replacing your router/firewall didn't make any difference. Some games didn't seem to notice the spike. But I had series problems with Overwatch not registering rockets being fired or other inputs being discarded. Problem when away as soon as I switched to a broadcom based modem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I just built a midtier AM4 computer for a family member, and while there are dirt cheap AM4 boards... uh, you don't want those. If you went through the AM2, AM2+, AM3 etc era, you know that just because AMD says a certain socket is going to be backwards compatible, it doesn't mean the actual boards are ever going to get those updates (i'm still mad at Gigabyte, but Phenom II for lyfe). So if you want to leave the Zen2 window open, I wouldn't count on anything older than B450 getting updates, honestly, and especially not A series boards (which you shouldn't buy for other reasons). And even if B350 boards get support, you can bet that many of the nice-to-haves in Zen2 won't be functional. I always believed in getting the best motherboards and saving on everything else, but 500 dollar options have made that ridiculous. The most I've spent on a motherboard is 200 dollars and that was high enough to make me uncertain. It used to be a great motherboard was 100 dollars and a terrible one was 80 so it made the choice really easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
craig588 posted:I always believed in getting the best motherboards and saving on everything else, but 500 dollar options have made that ridiculous. The most I've spent on a motherboard is 200 dollars and that was high enough to make me uncertain. It used to be a great motherboard was 100 dollars and a terrible one was 80 so it made the choice really easy. Companies discovered that gamers have disposable income.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
All you have to do is wait a few months after the things come out and get something that isn't all blinged out. The only issue with this is overclocking. Latest chips are motherfuckers that need a lot of power.. so better VRMs can help with that and that means spending more. The other benefit is better VRMs probably mean the thing will last forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The intel platform will be faster with cheaper ram, too, although 3400+ stuff is getting cheaper these days. You don't need DDR 3400+ with either the 1xxx or 2xxx Ryzens unless you're trying to get peak synthetic bench scores and its kinda silly to talk about high speed RAM with either a budget Intel or AMD build anyways. DDR4 3000 will get you nearly all the benefit of DDR4 3200, for at least any of the AMD Ryzen systems, for only a little more than the cost of the cheaper DDR4 2600 or 2400. Really RAM is the last thing you probably want to look at for any system if you're trying to get the most bang for your buck in a budget PC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
For a decade goons have been advising against buying higher speed ram, and for a decade the passage of time has proven that to be terrible advice. You don't need to go buy DDR4 4000 or something, but the price/performance deflection point has consistently shifted upward as hardware ages.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Buying anything more than 3000-3200Mhz DDR4 is kind of a waste at this point unless you're a hobby overclocker, and in several years you can't be sure they'll have the ultra-high-speed stuff on hand to fulfill an RMA on that lifetime warranty. Also, in 12-16 months we'll have DDR5.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:You don't need to go buy DDR4 4000 or something, but the price/performance deflection point has consistently shifted upward as hardware ages. Yeah, pretty much. The super-high end RAM is still kinda a waste, but various games and such have demonstrated noticeable differences between 2666/3000/3400 these days. Price is also basically a wash, even for budget builds: Newegg's cheapest 16GB (2x8) sets: 2133-15 is $75 2400-16 is $70 2666-16 is $85 (yes, 2666-19 can be had for $75, but that's dumb) 3000-16 is $80 3200-16 is $95 3400-16 is $150 (sales down to $95, though) 3600-17 is $145 3866-18 is $200 So unless you're really trying for 3400 or up, it's all pretty much down to what sales are going on, so don't buy lovely slow RAM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Cygni posted:In the end to me, the big debate is 6/6 with fast threads or 6/12 with slower threads in year 3, year 4, year 5. If you aren't running a rendering box for work (lets be honest, nearly nobody is), or a big twitch streamer (lest be honest, nearly nobody is), I'm personally pessimistic that a huge thread explosion is incoming. So the 9400F with a ~9% gaming advantage today compares favorably to me. Back when I got my 6600k everyone thought that 4/4 would be perfectly fine for gaming looking forwards a few years, that turned out to be wrong. I do think the 9400F is a good part but I'd just be a bit wary of skimping on threads after that experience, especially since the next gen consoles are gonna be 8/16. I don't expect the 9400F to ever be passed up in raw gaming performance by the Ryzen 6/12 but I worry about weird frametime spikes in badly optimized games like you're starting to see with 4/4 CPUs. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Back when I got my 6600k everyone thought that 4/4 would be perfectly fine for gaming looking forwards a few years, that turned out to be wrong. If you got that 6600k near release, you've gotten almost 4 years out of it, during which 4/4 has been perfectly fine for basically everything. Even today, games that are really limited by an overclocked 6600k are few and far between. Yeah, the new consoles will push thread counts up eventually, but that'll take some time, and the PS5 won't be out until some time in 2020, anyhow. Both the PS4 and XBox One have 8 core CPUs (well, 2x 4-core for the PS4) since their release in 2013 and we're still really not seeing huge issues with 4- and 6-core desktop CPUs keeping up. Basically I wouldn't worry about a 6-core CPU getting poo poo on by many games in the next couple of years--you might find one here or there, but they'll be exceptions, not the rule. That said, the 2600X is usually within spitting distance of the 9400F in gaming, so if sales or whatever makes one overall platform cheaper, then that'd probably be the the bigger factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:02
|
|