Mihle

No matter the performance, 12GB VRAM should be the minimum you go for when buying a GPU, maybe except of you are buying very cheap/used.

In my opinion the 4060 TI 8GB should not have existed.

May not fir your needs, but in the class I am currently doing, we have been using H2 memory database.

Benefits it's it's simple, negative is that the data is lost when you restart it.

Will try out another database later.

I was sceptical about getting a laptop with glossy screen, but the glare is much less distracting than I thought it would be.

I will do something else than what other people here are doing and mention newer stuff. Maybe less when it comes to influential and more to do with interesting. Even if it goes against what OP asked:

• Chiplet designs, both AMD and Intel.
• The 3D V cache that AMD is doing.
• Intel doing big little cores with cores that are cut down, while AMD on the server side instead just makes the normal cores smaller.

Is all things I find very interesting.

I wouldn't personally upgrade if my PC was those specs. I would use it for quite a few more years first.

Yes, 1080p looks more pixelated, and therefore grainy than 1440p. It's has less pixels.

I wouldn't personally call that an upgrade.

1 hour ago, 220VoltsallCore said:

shouldn't 1080p on 1440p look better than on 4k? since 1080p is closer to 1440p res

No, as one pixel on 1080 would be exactly 2x2 pixels on 4k, while on 1440p its not even close to a whole number of pixels, it would have decimals. I believe there would be one 1080p pixel per 1,333333....x1,33333... Pixel on 1440p. If my math is right.

1 hour ago, 220VoltsallCore said:

so does 1080p look bad even in 1440p monitors?

If the 4k monitor and 1440p monitor is the same size, 1080p should look worse on the 1440p monitor than the 4k one, theoretically.

I have 4k monitor, 3072x1728, aka 80% look good to me in games. Change it in game and not in windows/drivers.

More and more games have seperate display resolution and game/render resolution. Have display resolution at native resolution and change the render resolution. It looks better.

Things that help much more towards preventing climate change, and most of them we already have technology to do plenty more of than we are currently doing:

• Replace all gas and resistive heating with heat pumps.
• Increase insulation of buildings.
• Build and use more public transport.
• More electric cars and busses.
• Build more clean energy production, including nuclear power.
• Make items people buy last longer.
• Make people and companies keep what they have for longer.
• Make datacenters use spare heat for for example heating up nearby buildings.
• Repurpose materials more than we currently do.

New server hardware do become more and more efficient over time already and it would be much harder to accelerate that.

You can just sew it on so it's fits you, but you can't adjust it anymore.

3 hours ago, Tan3l6 said:

Therefore being blind has some performance advantages!

Be blind, save money!

29 minutes ago, testcy said:

 

Is 125% the recommended windows scaling?

I haven't had issues with it in 99%+ cases, and those that have, that is mostly installers, or old shitty programs. (MySQL Workbench for example) And I think those would have issues(blurry) on 150% scaling too.

You can turn off scaling on individual programs, so that they specifically become 100% scaling for those.

Just now, testcy said:

I have a 28" 4K and I find 150% to be small, how is it possible to use a 27" 4K at 100%? I don't play games, but I surely don't want to buy a monitor that is pixelated.

If you don't play games, there is even more reason to go for higher resolution in my opinion.

I use 125% on my 4k 32".

32" is a nice size for 4k.

My personal opinion is that 1440p is too low resolution for that size. 1440p is maximum 27" for me.

If we are talking about 16:9 monitors.

Fewer and fewer people are buying 24" monitors. And those that are aren't willing to spend much on them. Therefore the manufacturers aren't making good/expensive ones.

Dual setup is more common than triple. And I of those triple monitors I see, it seems more common now to have one of them being above the two others.

If I go 2x16, these ones are fine, right?
Corsair CMK32GX4M2Z3600C18
Kingston KF436C18BBK2/32
Both are 3600 CL18.

I have RX 5700 XT and 4k monitor(32") Its plenty games it can't play native 4k, but some you can, just maybe not at max settings.  (To reach 50-60 fps)

For plenty games where it put the rendering resolution to 70/75/80%, with or without FSR. I have played plenty games that way and it looks fine.

Worth noting I have not played Cyberpunk spesifically.

I can come with a more detailed list of some games and what settings I played at, if someone wants to.

Benefit of 4k is bigger outside of games, than in games is my opinion.

On 4/1/2024 at 11:44 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

It seems some of the people who responded are willing to waste time trying to OC RAM manually.  I've never been part of this crowd, if you want it to "just work" than buying the right speed you want and just two sticks is the way to go.

 

If you want to gamble 4x sticks, then by all means.  Its about how much time you want to potentially put into troubleshooting if you get unlucky.

 

Not necessarily, 3200 CL16 may be able to OC to 3600MT CL18, but they may also be chips that wouldn't handle that and so were sold as a slower speed bin.

 

The point of buying faster RAM is that the manufacturer has tested it works at that speed and has programmed the right timings into the RAM so you can enable XMP/EXPO and it should "just work".  Overclocking slower RAM to be faster than its rating can involve a hours of tweaking the timings to find the stable settings, or may simply not run stable at all any faster than their rating.

I didnt talk about OCing or adjusting anything, I was talking about 3200 CL16 and 3600 CL18 having the same latency, and therefore should have the same performance?

9 hours ago, Levent said:

Get whatever is cheaper and hope that it has the same dram chips and layout. I am personally running a 5800X and 3600 with 4x8G and 4x32G ram with both at 3800mhz.

How would I know the layout/chips?

9 hours ago, Tan3l6 said:

It's better to go upgrading path of 2x16GB i think. Older Ryzen processors might have a bit of a problem sometimes with 4x sticks (not sure if 3000 series is that incompatible though).

  

Usually yeah. 

But 3600MT/s RAM is not that more expensive probably. If going 2x16GB.

8 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Correct, but its true 4x sticks is more prone to problems than 2x.  That's not to say it wont work, its just a safer bet to replace both sticks than add two more.  Plus you get the slight improvement (honestly not sure its enough to care) of being able to go for 3600MT RAM.

Different people saying different things.
Arent 3600MT CL18 basically the same as 3200 CL16?

For reference, the 2x8GB mentioned in OP, cost about 60€ while replacing with 2x16GB would be about 110€, no matter if its 3200 CL16 or 3600 CL18.

Decisions... People saying different things... Different things being written on different places on the web... Wish there just was an black and white answer you could look up on a website, or know exactly how big the risk for it not working properly is

My custom system is Ryzen R5 3600 in B450 Mortar max and RX 5700 XT.
Memory is currently 16GB (2x8GB) memory Kingston KHX3200C16D4/8GX. (3200 with 16-18-18).
In some games(not many yet), memory usage have reached 14,5-15GB, and therefore I am thinking upgrading to 32GB might be worth it, DDR4 arent expensive.

I tried finding the exact same ram, but its not available anymore, so looking for alternatives. Ones I have looked at:
Kingston KF432C16RBK2/16 (3200 with 16-18-18)
Kingston KF432C16BBK2/16 (3200 with 16-18-18)
(I think its the same ram with different heatspreader?)

Both of those should be fine, even if they arent the exact same model, right?
If its not worth the risk I can go for 2x16GB, costs more.

(I am considering maybe getting an 5800X3D at some point but not right now)

14 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Thats 2nd easiest part. Metal plates from 50mm width upwards is very standard hardware for connecting 2 pieces of something. So that and magnets you can get from any hardware store just like that. 

Never said it would be hard, its just another thing you have to do.

12 hours ago, Neroon said:

I mean the arch is extremely basic. You could design something similar in like 10 minutes. Basically it's half a ring, design it with a slot in for the magnet, and you're done. You can shape it a little if you want, but yeah it's basic stuff.

Shape is closer to 1/3 of a ring or so. I don't think rou would find magnets that are the exact same shape, but don't know how much that matters.

You would also have to get the metal plates.

It would work, but the quality would be worse probably.

20 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

I too am fine with walled garden ecosystems, if there are other options.  It's not like android doesn't exist.  I find forcing people not to have the option of the walled garden is very anti-freedom.

 

What I find odd is well informed people going through these steps.

 

1. Airpods are part of a walled garden eco system that requires an iPhone.
2. Despite not using an iPhone buy them anyway.
3. Complain.

 

What some people don't seem to get is that, opening the walls a little doesn't make the experience worse for those that only are inside of it. It only improves it for those that aren't.

Opening it up a little doesn't have to change how well your AirPods works with you iPhone, or iPhone with your Mac.

Its not a zero sum game for users.

Wireless mice is fine and has an real benefits.

With Wireless keyboard there is less options, and I think the benefits are so small that they aren't worth it unless you actually use it outside of your desk too.