Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Maxxtraxx

Member
  • Content Count

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Maxxtraxx


  1. 30 minutes ago, xg32 said:

    i7 8700 would be the best option here, it beats the 8600k for the same price as you can slap a cheaper heatsink on there.

    Not in gaming when the 8600k is overclocked or not by any strech, only in applications that can fully saturate 12 threads through the CPU.

     

    1 hour ago, Zeitec said:

    The 8600k @5.0ghz performs better than the 1700x in all games today. That being said I would take the 1700x all day long. I fully believe that the 8600k is going to really start struggling within the next 24 months due to a lack of threads, just like quad cores are today. The 1700x has nearly triple the threads. I believe the 1700x should last 4-5 years in AAA games at 60fps, where I expect the 8600k to start struggling to meet the 60fps minimums within 36 months. 

    All speculation and oppinion,

     

    (now my opinion with survey results)

     

    Migration in that direction but it will be a slow 5-10 year march.

     

    4 cores has been the gaming norm for 7 years plus and new gaming releases continue to be based on engines that cannot or do not usually take advantage of more than 6 cores for certain reasons:

    Game makers would be heavily reducing their available gaming population by making games that begin requiring minimum specs that MOST gamers do not have and most gamers will not have for 5 years as current systems begin to get into the hands of more common users.

     

    steam.jpg.be69b352ea8bcfb4c1d39fc194458b43.jpg

     

    As you can see, the most recent steam survey shows (correction)73% of users currently have 4 cores, this after 7 plus years of 4 cores being common.

    While (correction)23% still have only dual cores.

    These users are not going away and machines with these specs will take years to lose their dominance in market share.

    Now that Intel and AMD have gone almost entirely 4 core and up, we'll see more movement, but the finances needed to make games requires that a large gaming population be able to run said games.


  2. The 8600k will generally perform noticeably better in games by a decent margin especially when overclocked

     

    The Specific size of the FPS improvement in gaming will depend heavily upon the Framerates that you are interested in, The higher the framerates that you will be encountering the greater the difference in the performance of the 8600k vs the 1700x. This is entirely due to lower FPS generally games being GPU bound/bottlenecked and thusly the CPU performance difference will only arise when higher FPS situations allow the GPU to utilize the CPU more.

     

    SO, generally higher refresh/FPS focused gaming will see a bigger difference between the 8600k and the 1700x while higher resolution and lower FPS gaming will see a smaller difference between the two. In the end, the 8600k is the better gaming performer by a decent margin but you will not see that difference until the GPU is able to leverage the CPU better as your gaming becomes less GPU bound.

     

    I'm very unfamiliar with autodesk... but i'll go out on a limb here and guess that solidworks may perform and function similarly to autodesk. Puget systems has some benchmarks showing a 8600k vs 1800x for you to view. In general it seems that the 8600k performs quite similarly to the 1800x and would likely see even more improvment if you decided to overclock by any decent amount.

     

    Remember: the 1700x will have the higher core count and thread count to lean when all cores/threads can be leveraged BUT the 8600k has much higher per thread throughput due to it's more efficient IPC(instructions per clock) performance and its outright higher speed(as much as 1Ghz with some overclocks)

     

    Gaming uses fewer cores generally but benefits greatly from higher IPC and Clock speed thusly helping the 8600k.

    Some optimized productivity programs can better leverage the full 16 thread capacity of the 1700x and thusly perform better.

     

    Puget systems review can be found: HERE

     

    Toms Hardware also has an 8600K review that has some autocad and solidworks performance tests vs 1700x/1700 that may interest your in your decision.

     

    Toms Hardware review can be found: HERE


  3. 8600K will be your best Gaming performer(8700k will work just as well but cost more)

    1600 will work at a lower price but not offer much in the way of an FPS per dollar improvement

     

    Toms Hardware quoted pictures

     

    FYI: the R5 1600 had a price drop after this article was posted so the dot for the 1600 will simply drop to the $200 line and thusly improves it's value but not its performance.

     

    First pic: 

     

    FPS vs Cost: the closer the processor is to the bottom right the better it's performance and value(overclocked the 8600k is a very good value, better than the 1600)

    8600kprice2.jpg.1be145f9bab4376963e6c50fb5c44146.jpg

     

    The 8600K fairs slightly worse in the whole system cost category due to motherboard prices but is still a good value, possibly the best.

    Again the bottom right corner is the best and represents system cost per fps

    8600kprice.jpg.c475ddeeca89009effe6f3326acae65d.jpg

     

    Some 1080p tests with 8600k vs 1600

     

    GTA5: 8600k shows over 20fps(minimum) increase

    8600k1080gta.jpg.e3c46f928feb83f06b181ca95eb3f2e3.jpg

     

    Hitman 1080p: shows a 28fps increase vs 1600

    8600k1080hitman.jpg.8b304273de26a47d754cc550d4af6ec7.jpg

    Project Cars: shows a 23fps increase over the 1600

    8600k1080cars.jpg.10cd49b03c665eb4c39b7598c7446e1e.jpg

    Tomb Raider: shows a 24fps increase over 1600

    8600k1080tomb.jpg.9d6832cff9ff9968bdb27f3437618a88.jpg

     

    Warhammer: shows a 28fps increase over the 1600

    8600k1080warhammer.jpg.cd3b18565906faab3401ac0d777bb6e4.jpg

     

    There are also many games that are bound more by other limiting factors such as Battlefield 1, Civilization 5 and others that you can look at further in the article if you wish.

     

    Article found HERE

     

    SOOO.... IMO, for purely GAMING. The 8600k will be your best performer for the dollar spent

     

    IF you need more thread capacity for other tasks, the 8700k will help alleviate that while providing the same gaming performance


  4. On 12/17/2017 at 2:19 AM, Anghammarad said:

    It depends on your luck with the so called "silicone lottery" ... I would try going up increments of 25-50 and do a stress test, keeping an eye on the temps. 

     

    Keep in mind a overclocked 1080 will draw quite more power than at stock speed.

    dc5cfd3f-454a-4952-b8a8-a404de6f7a3b.jpg.043b81d404ad8a03c65bc403524f47cd.jpg

    _82305889_thinkstockphotos-486934735.jpg.cec12843dab5f963f591c14bde0b822a.jpg

     

    VS

     

    Silicon_Tile.png.f1e895bd234bd2fb48d71031db1f9ec5.png

    _82305889_thinkstockphotos-486934735.jpg.cec12843dab5f963f591c14bde0b822a.jpg

     

    This always makes me laugh, 

     

    hope there are no hard feelings. 

     

    One little letter makes a big difference.


  5. Net neutrality was hard at work protecting freedom of speech and opinion I see...

     

    Oh wait, I forgot...

    Diamond and Silk, (demonetized)

    PragerU, (restricted and demonetized certain videos)

    The Polish government(restricted)

     

     

     

     

    Oh... And James Damore... They just straight fired him for his views and having a research based discussion on his thoughts.


  6. The best thing you can do is check utilization numbers on both the processor and the graphics card. That being percentage of utilization, clock speeds, memory usage, core usage and watching for any spikes in utilization. It's these numbers that will tell you wether your card is performing normally.

     

    It could very well be that your graphics card is simply underutilized because it's being bottlenecked by the 7700 k.

     

    Use some programs like afterburner and Intel XTU and hardware monitor while you're using the programs are having issues with then get back to us with some numbers.


  7. From the day Al Gore invented the internet until 2015 net neutrality did not exist, the world survived (in spite of what Al Gore predicted) and the internet has continued to grow in size and speed.

     

    No chicken little, net neutrality did not erect the sky in 2015 only to have it fall down in 2017.

     

    Net neutrality put regulatory chains on the ISP's but not at all on the left leaning politically correct technomonopolies who are so happy to do the actual opinion and thought censorship on the internet but are the darlings of so many despite their immense power and willingness to squash dissenting voices. These same technomonopolies also stand to monetarily benefit from net neutrality which is why their support for it has been so fervent... But no one seems to care about or notice that...

     

    Rapid Growth and innovation requires taking risks on expensive new technologies and thusly requires inequality of service to fund said investment.

     

    Net neutrality not only harkens back to the Bell/at&t monopoly on telephones, it follows the same idea by destroying investment and advancement because of burdensome government involvement that removes the incentives for advancement and creation.

     

    Quote:

    "Progress requires inequality. If you don’t give entrepreneurs the ability to become unequal—not just get rich themselves, but they have to make their customers unequal, they’ve got to give their customers commercial advantage or life advantage. That’s what drives progress. If you take that out of the equation, if you say all traffic has to be treated equal, all customers have to be treated equal—first of all, capital investment in the network is going to go down. We’ve already seen some of that. But so is innovation. Why would you want to give that up?"

     

    quoted from here

     

    Update Addendum:

     

     

     

     

    To go along with Net Neutrality and compliment it...

    The FTC should unveil: BOX Neutrality

     

    The federal government will now ensure that all packages are now treated with the same priority.

     

    UPS, Fedex, DHL, USPS have for too long given preferential treatment to certain customers while relegating others to the SLOW lane. All packages shipped inside the U.S. must now be treated with the same priority level regardless of the sender or the customer.

    Example: UPS will no longer be allowed to treat Company X's overnight expedited delivery any different than ground shipping on packages from Walmart.

     

    What does this do?

    • It removes added value services such as: 2day prime shipping, Free 2 day shipping on orders over $150, ect. which are part of a good sales and marketing strategy.
    • It Forces UPS, Fedex, DHL, and USPS to compete on nothing more than price instead of improving quality, speed, or service.
    • It removes healthy, normal, natural, growth and competition as companies compete to offer the best product at a premium price, an acceptable product at a low price or anywhere in the middle.
    • It argues that the Roads and Air lanes are government built or controlled entities so the government should therefore force these companies that perform this service and use something the government had a hand in constructing to comply with a set of rules to ensure equality for all.
    • It forces all companies to lay off their higher paid staff that perform expedited services and hire only the cheapest per mile ground freight drivers to achieve their minimum requirements.
    • It promotes stagnation and mediocrity instead of achievement and exceptional performance.
    • It hamstrings the entire commerce market for the sake of some perceived need for equality(because THAT is politically correct, and therefore enforceable).

  8. My initial response would be to use several performance monitoring tools like afterburner for the GPU, hardware monitor for the CPU and even using the task manager like you're already using and start watching for any spikes in usage or maxed out memory or anything indicating a bottleneck of sorts. 

     

    I would start running some known problem programs to see if anything spikes as well as a performance check for the read and write speeds for your drives and even a memory checker to make sure your RAM is functioning at its desired speeds.

     

    I would also be looking for anything silly like hard drive or solid-state drive with slow speeds, The system running off of integrated Graphics instead of the GPU, ect.

     

    If I still haven't found anything I would likely reinstall the offending programs to see if anything changes and if still nothing I would finally reinstall Windows and see if the problem still replicates.

     

    Best of luck to you! Just giving you my own personal thoughts on how I would proceed.


  9. 28 minutes ago, JapanFreak said:

    Hi i recently broth an new pc and i have a problem with the 1080ti i always get between 130-150 fps at 1080p and the load on the graphic card (vram never goes over 40%) pls help i feel im getting crazy i tryed a lot of settings and stuff over the last 3 days i feel im going crazy

    PC SPECS

    CPU i9 7940X

    RAM 32 gb  3200mhz Corsair Vengence RGB

    MOTHERBOARD Asus Rog Strix x299 e gameing

    STORAGE Samsung 960 EVO 250gb + 2tb toshiba

    NVIDIA driver 388.59

    I'm not exactly sure what your "problem" is...

    is it that your vram usage is under 40%?(thats perfectly normal)...

    are you wanting to get lower fps because of screen tearing?(turn vsync on if so)...

     

    you're getting great FPS, it's likely your GPU is only hitting 60-80% usage and that your 14 core CPU could use some extra frequency when it's only using 4 cores and under(try overclocking it by bumping the max frequency for 0-4 core usage up to maybe 4.5Ghz or higher if possible, this could help you boost the FPS even more)

     

    I don't personally see any problems with what is happening or your setup, other than that a i9 7940x is complete overkill for any gaming scenario and is acutally outperformed in many cases by the i7-8700k due to its frequency advantage and newly acquired 6 cores.

     

    So, could you specify what exactly you're looking to fix/improve, it's not clear what exactly the problem is.


  10. There's nothing greedy about Nvidia's choices, there's nothing wrong with not offering SLI and there's nothing wrong with not offering nv link. 

     

    Nvidia has produced what is one of the single largest pieces of silicon design I've ever seen, it took a ridiculous amount of engineering man hours and production man hours to make this thing work. 

     

    The whole design is incredible, and thusly expensive to make and they're even offering it at a discount over what their V100 cards are sold at.

     

    It's not a graphics card... it's a card that can do graphics(and likely pretty well) but it has other more primary purposes. And is not marketed to Gamers for a reason.(it will get tested for it's gaming performance no doubt)

     

    This whole complaining about new products, and screaming greed reminds me of Tesla owners suing Tesla when they produced a new version of their Model S and suing simply because these people now didn't have the latest and greatest thing and were upset that a new product came out.

     

    It's not greedy to release a new product, but it is greedy for people to complain because their product has been replaced by something newer and better... and they're upset because they feel they're entitled to the best simply because they bought something, it's been replaced and they now have to spend money in order to have that new thing that is better than other people's things again... regardless that their current thing still works fine... regardless of the amount of work, time, engineering and effort that the company put into making the new product.

     

    That's called entitlement. 

    Definition: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.


  11. 11 hours ago, Bit_Guardian said:

    Except it's not useless in this case

     

    Forced upgrades, just as it's pure greed that you can't SLI a 980TI and a 980 despite the fact they're the same architecture, whereas AMD has always allowed this in XFire.

    Based on the same architecture is not the same as based on the same silicon design, and AMD does not allow what you are proposing, they allow using Xfire with the same silicon design across multiple naming scheme's(because AMD likes to rebrand the old products, unlike Nvidia)

     

    example:

    you can Xfire a r9 290 and r9 390 because they are the same silicon design.

     

    you cannot Xfire a r9 290 and r9 280x because the silicon design is different.

     

    Update clarification:

    HOWEVER: one thing that AMD does allow is crossfire on the same silicon design at different levels of chip enablement, example: a r9 290 with an r9 290x, same silicon only the 290 has a few components disabled.

     

    The 980 and 980Ti are Not the same silicon design(just like 290 vs 280x)

    For reference see leadeater's post:

    2 hours ago, leadeater said:
      Reveal hidden contents

    5K%20-%207K%20Series%20Crossfire%20Chart

     

      Reveal hidden contents

    3K%20-%205K%20Series%20Crossfire%20Chart

    http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/Crossfire-Chart.aspx

     

     

     


  12. Does the system work normally when it is not overclocked? 

    Did you do any stress testing at stock speeds before attempting overclocking?

    If you cannot answer those questions I would start by doing that first, if all is stable and temps are fine then try overclocking again.

     

    AMD seems to have been very specific with their binning of the ryzen chips(1800x, 1800, 1700x, 1700) with these 4 chips having a relatively small max frequency spread for the exact same product, they seem to have very limited clock speeds compared to Intel and seem to respond less to overclocking and hit a hard frequency wall between 3.8 and 4.1 GHz hence why AMD charges a premium for their higher clicked chips.

     

    You very simply may have lost the silicon lottery and have a chip that can JUST hit it's stock speeds. It stinks... But overclocking is not guaranteed at all.

     

    I hope you do find some extra frequency!

     

    Good luck!


  13. 31 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

    With how Nvidia treats cards I agree 100%

     

    4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

    I mean 64 was deigned to be a 1080 competitor and it does do that in some games. Plus with AMD "Fine Wine Technology" who knows, it might start to do it in the majority of games. 

     

    The 1080 is a better GPU now, but my money is on the Vega 64 aging better. 

     

    4 hours ago, Damascus said:

    This /\

    Amd GPUs consistently outlast nvidia GPUs that started off equivalent.  In the case of the 580 vs the 1060 for example - the 580 does better in newer games due to newer DX support and more VRAM.  This will allow it to maintain performance longer than the 1060.

    Jayz2cents would tend to disagree from his experience, specifically about the expected time til failure.

     

    See his "how far has Nvidia come in 5 years" video: Link about 1 min 39 sec.

     

    He(and many others) has/have handled far more AMD cards than myself so I can't comment personally...

     

    Warning an OPINION follows read at your own risk!!!

     

    My Own thoughts... It feels like AMD has had such terrible launch drivers and such slow driver updates and progression that the possible performance difference could be related to (as others have said) AMD cards simply not reaching their full performance untill months after launch.


  14. 50 minutes ago, dave_k said:

    I mean, all of the benchmarks shoukd be taken with a grain of salt because most people wont use top of the line GPU and that is still the major performance factor in games.

    Ofcourse intel has better gaming performance, but the difference is mostly visible with nonsense combinations (1080Ti at 1080p or something) 

    As digital Foundry says they perform their CPU test with the highest performance GPU possible to eliminate bottlenecks. Because it's only when you eliminate gpu bottlenecks that you see the true difference come out when the CPU is not being held back by the GPU.

    You're correct in saying that a 1080ti makes the performance difference apparent but that's because of the high frame rates it provides, so it's not just a more powerful GPU but High frame rates that bring out the performance difference.

    It's not just "nonsense" combinations that bring this out it's just more apparent with those. So as time goes on and graphics cards come down in price and new ones come out, that performance difference will become more and more obvious.

    Hence, always buy the best performing product within your available price range to give yourself the most future-proof possible build.

    I would also point out that the number of people that use 1070 and higher gpus is rather significant and anything 1070 up can definitely benefit along with lower resolution High frame rate setups.


  15. 4 hours ago, dave_k said:

    If you see this as significant performance difference, you should seek medical help xD

    I understand your point on that, but...

    If this was a gtx1060 vs rx580 question half the forum would be having a full on nuclear war over 10fps because that must mean one card is crap and one is good.

    My only goal was to show the overall trend that it follows, unity follows that trend that I was pointing out but to a lesser degree.


  16. 4 hours ago, Ace1329 said:

    What I do with my PC : Playing Games (Both old and new, especially CSGO, DOTA 2 GTA 5, Hitman etc.,),Programming, Game development, Browsing. 

    I don't want to close running programs (IDE, audio chat, web browsers) while playing games. 

     

    I can put some extra buck over R5 1600X to get i 5 8600K. 

    But I wanna know if it is worth putting extra. 

     

    Other parts I picked:

    GTX 1060 6GB OC Dual fan (MSI mostly, Its cheaper here) .

    Corsair Vengeance 2*8 3200Mhz.

    Monitor 144hz 1ms response time 24inch(I need suggestions on this on too). 

    Please help me out picking processor for my PC Build. 

    For selected  CPU please suggest good MoBo and CPU cooler. (I want to overclock after some time) 

    I need suggestions on Monitor, Case and any changes to my build.

     

    Last one:

    Will 6C/6T of i5  8600K act more future proof compared to 6C/12T R5 1600X?

     

    If possible please provide benchmark (Mainly Gaming fps on old and new games)  stats for both.

    Thank you. 

    PC part picker: HERE

    I do not claim that this is the best possible build for you, that it could not be done cheaper or that you will like it. But I did attempt to follow your design requirements and use high quality parts with reasonable prices.

     

    I went through and did a rough build using the memory and GPU that you selected and then added:

     

    8600k with a z370 Motherboard that should overclock well without being crazy expensive and a Beefy CPU cooler to help with your temperatures when overclocking(a lesser air cooler can lower your price 50$ while sacrificing maybe 100-200 Mhz and 10-20 deg C when overclocking)

     

    1TB SSD(2.5 inch) a big, fast and reliable SSD, go smaller if you need to save some money, IMO 250Gb is the smallest i would recommend.

     

    1080p 144hz monitor that had a few good reviews and a reasonable price. You are going to be looking at this screen everyday so get what you want, I just found something that may work.

     

    Power Supply: Tier 1(best possible quality: See LTT topic on that Here) 750watt for future GPU upgradability and system stability: a Tier 1 PSU for $65, that quality to price ratio is really good and its only $30 more than some TERRIBLE set your system/house on fire PSUs.

     

    Case: Fractal Design Meshify C (I own it, I really like it, it has glass and a smaller footprint while giving great filtered airflow, BUT it does NOT have 5.25" bays and only 2 3.5in Drive bays) (you can get a MUCH cheaper case, but... for Glass and this quality level... IMO $50 more is worth it unless it doesn't fit the budget)

     

    You did not provide a total system build cost so in my build I cut cost in areas where I felt it made little difference while providing quality(MOBO/PSU)

     

    It is My opinion that the 8600K will provide you with the better choice for future-proofing your system, it has 6 cores (which is now to showing itself to be more and more useful in games), it has some of the highest possible Overclocks of any chip available, it has the highest single thread performance of any chip available, and it has an upgrade path to an 8700k with more thread handling if and when you need it.

     

    The CPU benchmarks that show the best case scenario for performance difference can be found here:

    Tomshardware: 8600k vs 1600 LINK HERE

     

    GTA5: 101 fps vs 81 fps (25% better)

    Hitman: 135 fps vs 104 fps (30% better)

    DOTA2 and CSGO: sorry I could not find any relevant benchmarks... but I think i can safely say that Intel's much higher Clock speed and better single threaded performance should put it on top here in a perfect scenario.

    1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

    You mean games like...

    Witcher 3? 156 FPS vs 116 FPS

    Rise of the Tomb Raider? 130 FPS vs 100 FPS

    Far Cry Primal? 136 FPS vs 100 FPS

    Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

     

    26% average performance boost over the 1600X @ 4ghz is... meaningful given the choice between the two.

     

    8600 Benches here

    1600x @ 4ghz Benches here

    Best of luck to you and I hope this helps in some way!


  17. Just now, Princess Cadence said:

    I disagree, I can not see it being worth it to what he is doing much less to the level of GPU and Display he is acquiring.

    Ok, you disagree a better product is not worth it even though he has the money and is willing to spend it... just because his current setup can't fully take advantage of it. You are entitled to your opinions.

     

    ACE1329: It's your money and your future upgrade path you have in mind. Equal or slightly lesser performance right now or spend the $100 and get something that will perform a little better now and much better in the future. You make the $100 choice based upon your aspirations and desires. I'm always going to recommend the better product within the budget you have decided upon.


  18. 4 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

    Not saying one shouldn't get the i5 8600k if has money means, hells I actually adivse the i7 8700 instead since it outperforms the i5 8600k at 5ghz and you can even up the spending with a cheaper motherboard and cooling solution.

     

    But realistic speaking to the games OP is considering, the level of GPU chosen... OP is clearly looking for savings rather than spend 100 extra dollars for a few likely unnoticeable fps gain in a future GPU he doesn't even own.

     

    He asked:

     

    3 hours ago, Ace1329 said:

    I can put some extra buck over R5 1600X to get i 5 8600K. 

    But I wanna know if it is worth putting extra. 

    The answer is yes, you even said so yourself, I saw no point that he was looking to save money, he said that he HAS the money and is asking if it is worth it. Yes, a 25% bonus towards his future is worth it.


  19. 18 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

    Yeah but these are with a nVidia TITAN Xp

    OP is buying a GTX 1060 lol... so much for taking OP's into regard when advising.

    Soooo... what your're saying is that you should completely disregard a better performing product because with your current setup you won't see an immediate difference? I mean... it's not like anyone around here upgrades to better GPU's down the road or anything... I mean... why should i take that into consideration and recommend a product with a noticeable performance boost?

     

    It is worth it to purchase the best performing product that you can currently afford to allow for the best possible future upgrade path.

     

    So when someone asks, should I get part A(not even overclocked) that performs 25% better than part B(fully overclocked) for my current build... however my current GPU can't fully extract every ounce of performance from yet... My answer is yes, 25% better performance is worth it. When he upgrades to a GTX1160/2060 or a used GTX1080/1080Ti in the future, those products receive a 25% performance boost because of the better part being put in now.


  20. 1 hour ago, dave_k said:

    you should specify that you had problems with a dinky-ass title with basically no optimization.

    I am playing with stock R5 1600 and purely singlecore game like War Thunder runs at 120+ Fps 90% of the time with a midrange GPU.

    I dont think that's an issue with Ryzen anywhere except 240hz 1080p gaming.

    You mean games like...

    Witcher 3? 156 FPS vs 116 FPS

    Rise of the Tomb Raider? 130 FPS vs 100 FPS

    Far Cry Primal? 136 FPS vs 100 FPS

    Assassins Creed Unity? 130 FPS vs 120 FPS

     

    26% average performance boost over the 1600X @ 4ghz is... meaningful given the choice between the two.

     

    8600 Benches here

    1600x @ 4ghz Benches here


  21. 30 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

    Can you put text not written by yourself into quotations so it's clearer what are your opinions, and what are opinions of the person you are quoting?

     

    As for his argument, I'd argue that we should look at how Europe is doing, internet wise. Many of them are heavy on regulations, but still have massive investment and are getting speeds that make the US look sad.

    Fixed my quoting for clarification.

     

    Are you sure Europe is doing that much better?

    According to information Here

     

    It doesn't look terribly impressive, Sweden being the top performer at 19Mbps. I am at 25 Mbps myself(I rarely need anywhere near that speed, but it is useful for downloading big steam games. I have to confess that I do really like the Xfinity hotspots that are popping up seemingly everywhere now and allows me to avoid using my project fi data.) I could easily go to over 300 Mbps if I Really wanted to now that docsis 3.1 is active.

     

     None of my friends or family that have 5-10Mbps(because they choose to have cheaper service) have ever complained to me about speed, my parents have gone to antenna TV and streaming vs cable TV, I myself noticed zero difference in performance with normal usage when I went from 10 to 25 other than with large download times.


  22. The following Quote is from an article discussing net neutrality with a man named Bill Frezza, who began his career at Bell labs when the telephone industry had the same problematic(opinion) regulations as net neutrality. He lived through, worked though and saw first handedly the stark difference in the development of the phone system before and after the Bell Monopoly breakup.

     

    On an observational note I think and hope that there is something everyone here can agree upon, we all desire better internet infrastructure and continued investment in and advancement of the technology and hardware that makes up this service and giant product that is the internet.

     

    The biggest difference that we all seem to have is exactly how much input the governing authorities in the US specifically should have. My observations are that the majority of this forum is left leaning in their outlook and values which almost inherently means greater government intrusion and regulation where as most dissenting voices(myself included) perfer a hands off approach as much as possible, believing that the entire system as a whole can do much better by promoting a free market as much as possible.

     

    We all want the same thing, we differ in how we think that can/should be accomplished, being on one side or the other does not make anyone evil, bad or stupid... To treat someone as such simply destroys any ability to hold discussion and takes on the juvenile tendencies of a child(or the American news media)to shut down productive discussion.

     

    The story he has to tell is that the Internet as we know it was born out of the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1982. Specifically, the Internet grew out of rejecting the very policies that are the backbone of “net neutrality.”

     

    Quotation Begins:

     

    Progress requires inequality. If you don’t give entrepreneurs the ability to become unequal—not just get rich themselves, but they have to make their customers unequal, they’ve got to give their customers commercial advantage or life advantage. That’s what drives progress. If you take that out of the equation, if you say all traffic has to be treated equal, all customers have to be treated equal—first of all, capital investment in the network is going to go down. We’ve already seen some of that. But so is innovation. Why would you want to give that up?

    That’s why we should be thrilled to see Internet service providers contemplating“Internet fast lanes” to charge extra for massive data users like Netflix. This would set off a gold rush of investment in infrastructure and innovation that would eventually bring us all much high data transmission speeds. That’s what the actual history of the Internet shows. The exotic, exorbitantly expensive new technologies of a few years ago eventually become the cheap and ubiquitous technologies of today.

    This is such a commonplace experience that it’s really astonishing that anyone in the tech industry has let themselves be bamboozled by the notion that we’d all be much better off with the business model of a sclerotic, highly regulated public utility.

     

    Quotation ends.

     

    Article here

     

    And a interview with Ajit Pai himself on the very topic and why he feels the way he does can be found: Here

×