kevinisbeast707

So I had enabled 2 factor authentication on floatplane through Google authenticator. I also had to reset my Pixel on which all of my 2 factor was on. I therefore lost my codes but since FLoatplane likes to make me log in every time I go to the site instead of just staying logged in like the ltt forum I have no way to reset my 2FA that I know of. Does anybody else know if there's a way to reset 2FA without being logged in?

pretty similar it would appear. The truly smaller cases are gonna be the cooler master ones and the thermal take and corsair cubeish ones.

The hd120 do look very very good and are what I would probably recommend if you're looking for addressable rgb leds built into the fan. As for the halos they work best on white and grey bladed fans with black being less reflective and transparent being a relatively unknown.

The sp120 and ll120 are pretty much the exact same fan but one has more leds on it. Look at the blade design. To the op, Cooler masters rgb fans are decent enough if you can find them cheap, corsairs sp and hd fans are good but slightly pricey, the light loops are the ultimate rgb fan but they're very expensive. Corsair's ml120 pro rgb are excellent fans with decent rgb. Ennermax has rgb fans that perform well and are fairly inexpensive. Lastly you could get any fans and use phanteks halos rgb fan frames.

I like where your head is at but every week and sometimes more often my friends and I get together for lans as well and we always end up with someone who doesn't have a computer somehow. Also I just really love making my life harder than it needs to be and virtualization sounds like fun

So I have decided that I'm going to drive up to Vancouver for LTX 2019 and my girlfriend decided that she would like to join me. This means that I am going to have to buy her the byoc lan pass so that she can sit next to me during that time. The problem arises at the point where she doesn't want a computer for herself for gaming since she lives in a dorm at her college. Initially I was going to take my current mitx ryzen system and put it in the same case as another computer like in a Phanteks enthoo mini xl ds. This case is pretty big though which would make using it as a lan computer pretty difficult. I then had the thought that I could do something like what Linus did in 2 gamers 1 cpu. My initial plan was to buy a threadripper chip with either 12 or 16 cores and have two 6 or 8 core gaming systems for her and myself during lans. However intel also has hedt processors that are still better for things like gaming but they are so much more expensive for a comparable core count that I don't know if I can justify that cost. Also with ryzen 3 there are supposed to be higher core count cpu's on the am4 platform but I don't know if that will be as good as using a proper hedt platform or if it will be out in time for LTX 2019. So I guess my question is should I get threadripper, wait for ryzen 3, or save up more for intel's hedt platform and why? (also of note is that all platforms support matx which is the size I plan on using)

The Cooler master q300l is an excellent budget matx case, Corsair has a case called the crystal 280x which is actually very small (shorter but slightly wider than q300l, and they have an air 240 which doesn't have tempered glass but is slightly cheaper, Thermaltakes Level 20vt is cheaper than the 280x by a couple dollars but is slightly larger, another decent small matx case is the bitfenix prodigy. Slightly larger but still excellent cases include phanteks evolv matx, fractal meshify c mini, fractal focus mini, and corsairs 88r.

Congrats!! Welcome to the better performance side of laptops?

So you're going to need new tubing and fittings. It depends on where you're comfortable buying from and which brands you're comfortable with. EK makes both great tubing and great fittings and you could absolutely use their stuff probably with a 3/8 inch inner diameter and a 1/2 inch outer diameter. With that being said I personally started using xspc's compression fittings as I have found that their fittings are easier for the ek tubing to go over. Pimochills tubing is pretty good but I have heard that it has sizing problems with compression fittings. Anywho I've put links to everything mentioned and I would recommend going with EK's tubing and xspc's fittings which are linked in a six pack (btw you'll need six fittings if you're adding a gpu block to the mix). You can always save a couple bucks by going with barbed fittings but the experience is overall worse. Also make sure to get a premix or some kind of anti corosion and biocide mix. Ek makes cryofluid which is good and xspc makes ECX both of which I can recommend. EK duraclear: https://www.amazon.com/EKWB-EK-DuraClear-Tubing-Meter-Clear/dp/B01MQOGE2E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1548878049&sr=8-1&keywords=liquid+cooling+tubing Primoflex lrt: https://www.amazon.com/PrimoFlex-Advanced-8in-Tubing-Bundle/dp/B00A0PZZYQ/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1548878049&sr=8-6&keywords=liquid+cooling+tubing EK fittings: https://www.amazon.com/EKWB-EK-ACF-Compression-Fitting-Tubing/dp/B077GY6CBN/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1548878168&sr=8-10&keywords=3%2F8+compression+fitting+liquid+cooling Xspc fittings: https://www.amazon.com/gp/slredirect/picassoRedirect.html/ref=pa_sp_atf_aps_sr_pg1_1?ie=UTF8&adId=A0918033X795V83MFYYD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FXSPC-Compression-Fitting-Tubing-Chrome%2Fdp%2FB0758HD9B5%2Fref%3Dsr_1_1_sspa%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1548878225%26sr%3D8-1-spons%26keywords%3D3%2F8%2Bcompression%2Bfitting%2Bxspc%26psc%3D1&qualifier=1548878224&id=1834454461662326&widgetName=sp_atf

Have you considered getting something like noctuas redux p12 or phanteks mp12? Both are fairly inexpensive at less than $15 a fan but the real consideration that I would have you look into is phanteks halos frames. They go on top of the frame of whatever fan you already have and illuminate the fan blades. They come in plastic and aluminum versions and I believe they also have an addressable version if you feel like splurging. That way you can use whatever fans you want and have rgb on them.

if you want just a single color at a time then for rads I can recommend both corsair sp120rgb as they are fairly inexpensive and work well in most situations while being very quiet. If you want a fan that you can control using the pins on your motherboard then cooler masters 120mm air pressure fans in rgb look good and are very very quiet. The ML120 pros are ungodly expensive and are very loud near their full speeds but are otherwise an excellent choice if budget allows. Now if you want multiple colors at the same time then I believe the ml pros do that as well but they are really expensive, corsairs hd120/hd140 are excellent "budget" options. The cooler master fans also come in addressable rgb form and are the quietest at the cost of performance. Enermax makes some more subtle looking ring style rgb fans in both regular and addressable. If you want all the rgb then your only real option is the Corsair LL120/LL140 as they have all the rgb.

Yes

This is mostly true though I did find more instances of glitchy models in 4 core 4 thread than with 4 core 8 thread and I also found 6 core 6 thread better than 4 core 8 thread which the graphs sadly fail to convey. But once on the higher resolution tests then 1:1 is the preferred core thread ratio though it doesn't seem to be too bothered by the addition of smt to the four and six core configs.

I redid testing at 1080p with the exact same methods but at 3.7Ghz so that I could run 2 cores and 4 threads. I used both the lowest settings with very high level of detail which uses more cpu than normal and then I did some more runs with everything turned all the way up except for textures which were set to high, no motion blur, and smaa as the anti aliasing. Skipped testing of the 3 core series after noticing a general trend. Starting at 4 cores and 4 threads and going down, some models in the benchmark just straight up wouldn't render which gives way to the increase in frame rate you will see. This is either a side effect of this game's DX12 implementation or specifically the way this benchmark is designed. It is worth noting that the models not showing up in the lower core counts was a problem that I had in the previous resolution tests so just because an fps chart shows numbers doesn't mean they don't require nuance. DON'T USE A DUAL CORE IN RISE OF THE TOMB RAIDER. QUAD CORES NEED TO BE PROPERLY OPTIMIZED THROUGH SETTINGS TO USE MORE GPU.

I will be redoing this test at 1080p both at low settings and at what I would expect most people to play with to eliminate the gpu bottleneck.

True but I wanted to emulate lower tier processors as accurately as possible since using windows to disable cores doesn't allow you to choose between cores and threads.

My 1070 ti is somewhat of a bottleneck at that resolution though I believe the data is still somewhat relevant since there are statistical differences in each data set to the point of where I think that even at 1080p while there would be a greater difference between the 4 core and the 6 core 12 thread, I think that in practice both would be very playable. May do another run at 1080p just to confirm.

So this is my first real deep dive into a topic like this. If you find any errors or have any questions about what I put down, don't hesitate to ask or tell me. . . So this essay was actually inspired by a session of gaming where I was playing Rise of the Tomb Raider where I noticed that the game was using all of my six cores and twelve threads on my Ryzen 5 1600. Closely inspecting the cpu usage graph for each core revealed that all of the cores seemed to have the same usage pattern which gave me pause as to whether or not the game was actually using all of the cores for a useful load or if it was just replicating data to be worked on across multiple cores at the same time. I did not notice this behavior in dx11 mode though my overall performance was lower in DX11 overall. I decided to further investigate this by seeing if I could disable threads and cores to find out at which point the frame rates would actually start suffering from the reduced thread count which should indicate how many threads Rise of the Tomb raider was actually using. My methods for testing were using Rise of the Tomb Raider’s built in benchmark in repetition at the medium preset with textures turned up to high, anisotropic filtering set to 16x, dof turned off, motion blur and vignette blur turned off, tessellation set to on, and smaa as my anti aliasing. DX12 was enabled as well as exclusive fullscreen with a resolution of 3440x1440. In order to test the core and thread differences, I would disable the amount of cores or disable smt in the bios of my Gigabyte ab350n motherboard prior to testing and then boot into Windows 10. I would allow all system processes to die down and then launch ROTTR. I used msi afterburner, HWINFO64, and windows task manager to monitor cpu and gpu usage along with temperatures and power draw. I would run an initial “sacrificial” run of the benchmark to allow the system to load whatever it needed to into ram to reduce stutter and random cpu usage which would be otherwise unrepresentative of the overall expected performance. I would then run the benchmark six more times sequentially recording the average, minimum, and maximum frame rates for each part of the test. At the end of the run I would take a screenshot of all aforementioned monitoring software for further analysis. The system in question is comprised of an AMD Ryzen 5 1600 overclocked to 3.8Ghz using 1.325 Vcore, 16Gb Team Group Delta rgb ddr4 running at 2666Mhz cl 15, an EVGA GTX 1070 ti sc black edition with a sustained boost frequency of between 2050-2025Mhz, all on a Gigabyte ab350n wifi mini itx board and with all components custom liquid cooled on a 240mm loop with all fans at 100% pwm to ensure temperature was not a variable in regards to performance. Starting with the baseline of six cores and twelve threads, we can see the average is 78.45 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.71fps. This is a good result and if we look at the cpu and gpu usage graphs we can see that the cpu has a general downward trend in terms of overall usage and the gpu has no dips in usage which is what we are looking for. Now, simulating a 4 core cpu with smt to 8 threads such as a 1400 or 1500x, we can see that the average is 79.2fps with the minimums dipping down to 37.72. The difference between these two averages are not statistically significantly different if using a standard value of 0.05 for a standard 2 sample T test and anecdotally that seems true. The minimums however are in clear favor of the 6 core 12 threaded cpu. Looking more closely we can see that the maximums for the 4 core 8 thread cpu are noticeably ahead of those of the 6 core 12 threaded one. The minimums of the 4 core smt cpu are overall lower with a narrower spread than that of the 6 core smt cpu. The minimums of the latter processor were significantly better than those of the former. Looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows us that there are a few more noticeable dips in gpu usage and overall cpu usage is higher though overall they both look good and would both make for a good experience. Now looking at a six core cpu with smt disabled so 6 cores and 6 threads, the average comes to 79.24 fps with minimums dipping down to 44.96. In this case lower thread configuration is measurably higher than that of the higher thread count cpu in terms of average fps. However when looking into minimums we can see that they are not significantly different and so are effectively the same. Overall the experience between these two were very similar and looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs reveals that while the cpu usage was overall higher, there appear to be a couple of times where the cpu spiked less though the gpu usage remained about as flat as the 6 core 12 thread cpu and gameplay remained similar between all three of the aforementioned cpus with a couple very slight frame skips with the smt enabled four core. Moving on to an uncommon cpu core and thread setup, I decided to test a 3 core and six thread configuration to see how smt thread performance would compare to real core usage. The average fps is 77.39 fps and the minimums are 39.95. This puts the average fps measurably worse than both the six core twelve thread configuration and the six core six thread configuration though only by about two fps at best. In terms of minimums, the three core six thread configuration is not quite statistically significantly different than the six core twelve thread configuration, though it would likely become different if sample size was increased, but is measurably worse than that of the six core six thread configuration which gives credence to the theory of an increased sample size. In gameplay there were again minor frame skips which is backed up by looking at the cpu and gpu usage graphs which show that the cpu usage was high and that there were longer dips in gpu usage than in any of the previous configurations. Moving down to four cores and four threads effectively emulating something like a Ryzen 3 1200 or 1300x, we get an average fps of 76.32 and a minimum fps of 40.17. Comparing this to the original six core and twelve thread we can see that the average fps is measurably worse though the about two fps difference is not noticeable in gameplay. Minimums end up not being significantly worse since the sample size is low. Comparing to the four core eight thread configuration the four core without smt configuration comes in at about three measurable fps less with minimums that are effectively the same. In this case disabling smt ends up netting worse performance contradicting the six core configurations results. The last comparison to this configuration I thought was sensical was that of the three core six thread configuration since smt threads rarely equal real cores in workloads that are not highly parallelizable. In comparing these two there is a measurable drop in fps by about one frame per second which is measurable but is not perceptible in game. The minimums are once again effectively identical between the two configurations. Looking into the cpu and gpu usage graphs shows that there are longer periods high cpu usage in comparison to all other configurations with longer but even dips in gpu usage with the gpu usage dips being slightly deeper than those of the three core six threat configuration. Our last configuration is once again an odd configuration of three cores without smt for three total threads. While it is impossible to buy a modern cpu with this configuration it is useful for thread and core comparison. Also two cores and four threads was not stable with my overclock for some reason and by this time Rise of the Tomb Raider wanted me to wait 24 hours for it to revalidate that I had actually bought the game so I decided to cut it off at the three cores since you should probably not be buying a cpu with less than four in today’s market anyways. Moving onto the data, average fps come in at 75.21 which seems surprisingly high for such a low core configuration though not entirely surprising considering dx12’s claim to fame has always been better usage of weaker cpus. The minimums dip down to a pretty low 30.63 fps which begins to show how this cpu configuration is performing. This configuration is measurable and noticeably worse than all of the other configurations in both minimum and average fps. While the average fps seems to be pretty high, a quick look into cpu and gpu usage shows extremely high cpu usage with pretty much constant gpu usage variation with larger and longer dips than the previous configurations. I also observed during the runs that foliage would suddenly pop into existence while moving along in the run with other objects failing to load in at their proper times as well. Overall reviewing this data gives us a look into how Rise of the Tomb Raider utilizes threads in dx12 mode. Running this game in 1080p rather than ultrawide 1440p would have better accentuated thread differences but I chose to instead use a resolution that I think is somewhere near if slightly above the sweet spot for gaming right now. There are still some differences even if they are lower they do give insight as to how each thread of a system is handled in this game. Of note is that I would have liked to test a two core four thread configuration to match up older i3 cpus, it was unstable at my overclock of 3.8 Ghz but would run at 3.7ghz at stock settings. I did not want to redo all of my testing at 3.7Ghz so I decided that I would use a three core three thread configuration as a placeholder. Perhaps in the future I can take a deeper look into how a dual core with smt would fare in this game as well as others in comparison to the other configurations I have here. Overall it seems that this game prefers cores to threads though additional thread can make up for lacking cores. Smt does not have a purely negative impact on gaming as it did when ryzen was first launched and while it is usually behind in terms of minimum frame rates the difference is small enough to where I would say that there is no point in disabling smt in Rise of the Tomb Raider. In practice anything over 4 cores seems to be plenty to run this game at respectable frame rates and resolutions and in my testing scaling stops after 6 total threads. With that said I cannot dismiss that an eight core cpu might be a better performer though my data indicates that the cpu is already being used at a low enough amount that the additional threads should have no effect but to lower overall per thread usage. In the future I may add data should I get my hands on a higher core count cpu and it shows some significant difference in performance over this six core part. . . Here is a link to the Google sheets document containing all of my data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17NCvNtm4q08kRsa4j7uPNO0zQ_aS9oEwidojbPtGu-Y/edit?usp=sharing Here are the graphs from my data: and here are the screenshots of the cpu and gpu usage during the runs:

I'm a little late but I got this monitor recently and it's overall pretty great. Colors and blacks are good with good brightness. For gaming it's mostly alright. The response times of the pixels are definitely slower than a tn panel but it also seems slower than some ips panels. Setting the overdrive setting to extreme makes the response time much faster. At that setting it is wonderful overall. Now that NVidia supports variable refresh rate on monitors that don't have gsync this panel supports that. However this disables the ability to change the overdrive setting as nvidia sets what it thinks is best for the refresh rate you're getting which is unfortunate as the extreme setting is always better than normal as there is much less smearing and little to no overshoot. Still worth it at this price range though. I'm running a gtx 1070 ti and an r5 1600 and the 1070 ti is pretty much barely enough to push games at high settings at this resolution. Games like GTA V run at about 50fps on ultra with 2x msaa and even fortnite runs at about 80fps. So it definitely works if you plan on reducing game settings but if you want max settings I would recommend at minimum a 1080 ti. Excellent monitor overall though absolutely worth it if you pick it up for under $450.

I have the same monitor and noticed the same thing happening. It works pretty much flawlessly except that it has changed the overdrive setting to whatever it feels is best for the situation which unfortunately a lot of the time is normal which is wayyy blurrier than extreme. Also when around 50fps in gta at night it likes to flicker and idk why but that's the only problem I've found.

I'd probably recommend something like ek's L360 or PE360 especially if you're planning on adding a gpu to the mix. General rule of thumb is 120mm radiator for each component you want to cool so that should definitely take car of you. I'm currently using a slim 240mm for both my gpu and cpu and it works well enough for the constraints of my case but if you want to add a gpu or have an hedt cpu then I'd recommend one of the 360mm series. L360 $299 https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-kit-l360-r2-0 PE360 $399 https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-kit-p360

I managed to get an 8750h to the mid-high 90's through undervolt alone in a dell g7. I think it has quite a bit to do with how exactly the manufacturer intended the laptop to run. It's entirely possible that Acer has tuned their fans in the helios to keep it around 80 so they're not boosting as high as when you were thermal throttling. Though 85 still isn't terrible. I've put the thread that I made of laptop undervolting and there are a few different people who had success with it though I believe thermals largely stayed above the mid 70's.

If rgb is not a concern then noctua's redux (about $14 grey) or chromax (about $20 black) series are excellent depending on how much they wanted to spend. Other than that as @LukeSavenije said, be quiet silent wings 3 are great as well. Fractal design's hp14 aren't bad either and then also ek's vardar 140mm though their bearings tend to be louder since they're dual ball bearing. Also they could always add phanteks halos lighting to the fan if rgb is a real concern.

It's not worth the extra 20 percent in cost for about a 12 percent overall performance uplift after overclocks. Though with that said some games really do like the gddr5x of the 1080. The 1070 ti which I have handles pretty much everything at 1080p so I'd probably go with the 1070 ti. I'd recommend rtx but there's nothing price competitive there so. Fortnite is not going to run above about 170 at 1080p if you plan on cranking everything and rainbow six you definitely can't do max settings at 1080p with either card so.

Idk if you'll have room in your build but ek's aluminum or se kits are roughly equivalent in price to the 115i pro price and deliver better performance and customization. I was able to fit their s240 kit with one of their water blocks into a silverstone rvz-03 which I believe is 14L of internal volume. Though I had to use right angled fittings so I'm pretty sure I ended up spending something like $300 so that's a little bit over but their aluminum kit is about $160 I believe though the rad is 30mm thick instead of 25 but other than that depending on your cpu it may or may not be work using liquid at all. Just food for thought.