|
fishmech posted:Where do people even get 23.976 media?
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
madprocess posted:They defintirly don't use 23.976fps in PAL-land.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Just checked. My data disks are both on the Marvell controller. The most IO happens on there, so they're out of harm's way. But I can't identify what the system disks are hooked up to, the device manager makes it impossible to discern, since both 3 and 6 Gbps ports are on the same controller.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Or you could, y'know, look. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
No, but it's tucked away neatly, and I don't want to move it around too much while the drives are spinning. I'm pretty paranoid about that. But yeah, according to the location info, all drives are on 6 Gbps ports. I'll still need a new board at some point, for the next set of disks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 16:48
|
|
|
movax posted:VT-x support is more a function of the CPU than the chipset. The -K SKUs for example don't support VT-x, I believe. (they don't support one of the VT-* extensions, see link to my post in the OP). This is for extended page table support and the other.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Is there a reason not to keep a pre-rev3 board? I'll probably never use more than four disks. I've been going at it for a decade and always replacing the smallest in the bunch with larger ones. The only thing that could suffer is the Blu-ray drive, which is on one of the potentially broken ports.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It doesn't affect the drives (though it could corrupt data on them), it's the controller on the board that burns out. Do you REALLY want to trust a motherboard that you know is going to have at least a little bit of its chipset literally burn up? --edit: Putting my serial into their site tells me that I'm not affected by it. --edit2: Wait, wrong number 
Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
Turns out my preferred shop isn't being a dick about replacing the board. Pretty cool!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Figured that things wouldn't go over smoothly. Apparently I've bent a pin when taking the board out. The clerk at my usual shop noticed and called their main support guy to decide. He was immediately being a human being, by not saying hello or anything and telling me "I'm not taking that back" in a caveman manner. When I asked him if that's really an issue, since the board's declared de facto broken anyway, he became a raging homo. So I figured, gently caress 'em, cut my losses and went to the other shop on the other side of the road and got a new one. In retrospect, I should have kept my cool and asked for a box cutter, which is how I fixed it in two seconds, and now the "bent" pin is where it should be, flush with the rest, you wouldn't even know it was bent. But I guess I have to go through RMA directly with Asus (and then sell it on Ebay), since I called him a tremendous rear end in a top hat for being so goddamn irritating.  Then again, if he's the main support guy, I wonder why he didn't even consider trying to put it back into place himself. Also, I took the opportunity to put a bigger CPU cooler on it. The stock one that came with the i7-2600 kinda lost my confidence in it, after noticing the noise it made trying to cool down my video encoding few days ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Intel SATA 3Gb ports vs the Marvell 6Gb. Which ones are the better option? With 3Gb drives? I keep noticing that Marvell gets a small bad rap all the time. Why's that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:This old Anandtech review compared Intel SATA 2 ports vs. Marvell SATA 3 ports for the same drives. Basically, Marvell ports are slower despite supporting a faster standard on paper; they can't handle the same number of IOPS, which translates directly to all types of drive speed. Factory Factory posted:That's a little high, but not crazy, and well within spec. Burn-in testing usually causes higher temperatures than regular loads, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 19:27
|
|
|
Arctic Freezer 13.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but the top-end Intel CPUs (excluding Xxxxxxtreme Editions) have been priced reasonably for quite a while. Back when I got my C2Q, the Q9450 was just out, was the quasi be-all end-all IIRC and cost "only" 300 eurobucks. I paid the same for the i7-2600. Back during the P3 times, the upper models were way more expensive. I paid way more for that P3-933 I owned, and there were 1.1GHz variants out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:It will most likely be X58 again but without any of the perks (better overclocking compared to S1156). Overpriced CPUs, overpriced mobos and overrated quad-channel memory. Anyone with a sense of cost-effectiveness would avoid this like the plague.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Trickyrive posted:Fortunately for people buying into Sandy Bridge, they keep repeating that the current socket will be compatible with Ivy Bridge, making it a matter of just upgrading the motherboard firmware.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
More cores is always good, but there are also hopes for better single core performance thanks to quad channel and more cache.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
I never really got the point of triple channel. In a system were everything orients it self by the power of two or something divisible by two, three isn't exactly a common denominator. I don't know exactly how memory interleaving works, but if it's done with very fine granularity, I'd figure in a triple channel system, one channel would always be doing twice the work of the other two, e.g. a 256bit transfer on an aggregate of 192bit (3x64bit). And by that, holding up performance more than practical.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Seeing how Intel CPUs are x86 on the outside only these days, while having an apparently stable microcode format, they should just call it quits. Add a separate lighter RISC instruction set, to which the operating system can switch to on a per thread/process basis, easing the migration, and at some point just remove the x86 decoder. Apparently it is that piece which eats a lot of power.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
movax posted:Or are some people looking at X79 and jumping to hexa-core LGA2011 CPUs? Alereon posted:This also confirms that we can expect no performance improvements from the quad-channel memory architecture on the LGA-2011 Sandy Bridge-E platform, just what the additional CPU cores and integrated PCI-E controller offer. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jul 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
There's really no workloads that have a considerable advantage from this? I'm curious as to why Intel jumps through all the hoops to make it work for no real effect. I'd figure it'd be cheaper to market something as an xxxxtreme CPUs instead of actually developing and testing one (with questionable advantages apparently). --edit: vvvv Things like video encoding and rendering can tax a CPU quite good. E.g. when running Expression Encoder or Premiere, my CPU cooler starts making funny noises. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 25, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2011 18:02
|
|
|
I'm probably the only one that disabled turbo and doesn't overclock, I figure?  I kinda value data integrity. With this upgrade, I lost the ability to use ECC RAM, so I'm not taking any chances. Seeing as this box runs 24/7.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
movax posted:I'm a hardware engineer in a R&D group; we do high-speed data acquisition/control systems and as part of that we roll our own motherboards / FPGAs that connect via PCIe/HyperTransport to minimize latency and increase speed
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
movax posted:I think it's a cop out. Obviously I have no idea behind their development process, but perhaps their PCIe IP Core + the rest of their logic wasn't up to snuff. Hell, by the 7-series chipset, PCI will only be provided via PCIe to PCI bridge chips like the PEX 8112 at motherboard manufacturer discretion, so people with PCI cards will be going through PCIe whether they like it or not. Never struck me as honest reasoning either way, seeing that they'd be going from a shared lower speed bus to a dedicated high speed link. --edit: BTW, why are we discussing 1600MHz DDR3 with the SB? I thought it doesn't do more than 1333MHz. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Naw, I thought the Sandy Bridges all run at 1333 and the upcoming Ivy Bridges would bump it to 1600. I run four 4GB DIMMs, the CPU would probably not dig 1600, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I initially had it at 1333mhz same timings 1T, no overvolt. Bumped it up to 1600mhz 9-9-9-24 1T, slight overvolt. It's doing fine, idle and load well within safe limits. So... I guess what I'm trying to say, is...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
When the Ivy Bridge releases, can we expect the -E version around the same date, as well? Or will it be launched with a considerable delay?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Yeah, its retarded that the 2600K has VT-x but not VT-d despite being the top-tiered CPU for its socket
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Those x79 boards and the memory slots
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
Heh. I seem to remember them throwing an 20% value around in the past.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2011 12:15
|
|
|
Is a 30-50% guesstimate really worth 3-4x the price?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
Regardless, why are they comparing the 3960X, instead of the 3820, to the 2600K?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
I thought it's connected to that new magical ring bus, and the CPU pretends it being on PCIe with trickery in its PCIe core?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Not sure, possibly I'm going to skip it. In theory, power savings could possibly make up for it relatively fast, seeing how my box runs 24/7. Some changes listed in that Anandtech article earlier could prove advantageous for the hyperthreaded variants. And some math improvements (that divider) could help in my photo, video and rendering stuff. We'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, is SB-E 32nm or 22nm?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Eh, an enthusiast mobo with SAS would be nice. At least for a boot drive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
What's so special to the TB cables, that they're so expensive?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 12:56
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Ugh, watch it not switch to soldering until IVB-E.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
Another new socket for the Haswell?!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 14:25 |
|
|
Factory Factory posted:When they finally release a consumer optical Thunderbolt, the cables will get cheaper. Not cheap, because they're still fiber-optic cables, but cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 15:08
|
|