MaximumSid

Okay so Min FPS is the loweest FPS that happened, but 0.1% low is the average of worst 0.1% of FRAME TIMES that happened between frames, so when converted to FPS (Like Fraps does in this screenshot), the converted 0.1% frame times can be LOWER than the MINIMUM FPS that game ran at?

I was benchmarking some games with FRAPS and MSI afterburner, and I noticed that 'Minimum FPS' was lower than '1% time' and '0.1% time', so why is 1% low FPS LOWER than MINIMUM FPS? As if I understand correctly, it's an average of lowest 1% of FPS, so shouldn't 'minimum' be lower than '1% lows' as it is the lowest that FPS has ever dropped to?

Totally didn't know that, that's a pretty big range for error, so does that mean that two switches could have a difference of as much as 30 cN? like that would mean that one switch requires almost twice as much force (in extreme cases).

Okay so I really think that Cherry MX switches between different keyboards do not require identical force to be pressed. The first Cherry MX Red keyboard I got was Gigabyte Force K83, which had switches that were 'light' to press (will get to why I am mentioning 'light' here) Then my second Keyboard was a HyperX Alloy RGB Elite, which also had Cherry MX Reds, but these required more force to press than my Gigabyte keyboard, so I thought maybe its the keycaps. But this keyboard developed some issues later on, so had to be sent to service center for replacement. The replacement unit I got had Cherry MX Red switches that are very noticeably lighter to press than the defective unit I sent for replacement. Then I also got a Asus ROG Stix Flare RGB, and I have two of these keyboards in front of me, and the ROG Strix Flare has smoother switches than the HyperX Keyboard, and require noticeably more force to activate, even though both are Cherry MX Reds, and should require identical actuation force. So all of these 4 keyboards have a difference in the force required to press the key, even though all are Cherry MX Reds, and two of the keyboards were even of the same model. So have you had similar experience between different keyboards with the same switch? I am quite confused about why this is happening.

Okay, thanks for your answer.

No, I am buying online from a store that doesn't accept returns unless there are manufacturing defects etc.

So I built my PC last year for gaming + video editing: CPU: 9900K GPU: RTX 2080 Ti Motherboard: Asus RoG Maximus XI Hero RAM: 16 GB (G.Skill Trident Z 8GBx2 F4-3200C16D-16GTZR ) https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-16gtzr but I only had 16 GB of RAM, and now I am thinking about upgrading to 32 GB, however, instead of using another pair of 8GB Trident Z sticks, I am planning to upgrade with a pair of 8GB Sticks of Trident Z Royal, F4-3200C16D-16GTRS https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c16d-16gtrs Since, both have the same CAS latency 16-18-18-38, rated speed (3200), and voltage, I am assuming that they are basically both the same sticks, except for the shinier heatsink on the Trident Z Royal. So will I have any issues with making these RAMs work together? I am assuming that they will run fine on my Maximus XI Hero, and will work in Dual channel too (A/B/A/B config). So has anyone of you mixed the Trident Z Royal with regular royal, and faced any issues, or do you think that there could be any issue? I could of course upgrade with the same RAM sticks I used earlier, which would be most logical, but there are a few reasons why getting the Royal is important. Thanks.

I am benchmarking in the games using FRAPS and MSI Afterburner, I have to make bar charts and stuff.

Hey guys, so I wanted to benchmark some GPUs, I download FRAPS and FRAFS, and I benchmarked using FRAPS inbuilt benchmark, so here are a few questions 1. The figure after '1% frame time' is 1% LOW FRAME RATE, right? I know that its correct, but I just want to be 100% about this. 2. Why is the figure (1% and 0.1% low) a little different when run MSI Afterburner benchmark and FRAPS benchmark TOGETHER, and they have almost same number of frames analyzed? I mean I can understand that 0.1% low is very sensitive, but I think 1% low figure should be closer than a difference of 3-4 fps when both benchmarks show identical minimum and maximum frame rate 3. Very noob question, but why is 1% low FPS LOWER than MINIMUM FPS? As if I understand correctly, it's an average of lowest 1% of FPS, so shouldn't minimum be lower than this as it is the lowest FPS has ever dropped to? 4. Also, how to calculate the average temperature of the GPU? Using MSI after burner and logging the monitoring file? It shows the graph but how to calculate average temperature from that? Thanks.

Thanks for the info, I checked out his build video, that PC also booted up in 3 tries for the first time, like mine, but I didn't see him starting it from cold again (understandably). Though, I didn't see him talking about it, I'd really appreciate if you could point that out if he talked about it somewhere else. thanks again.

I am also having a similar problem, and I think that I also started facing it after turning on XMP, but it's still happening after disabling XMP, resetting BIOS and CMOS. it's taking 3 tries to boot up (doesn't happen when you reset/restart it). It's like fans spin up for 1 second, then it shuts down, then that happens again, and then it finally boots up properly on the third try. I also have an ASUS motherbaord. I have made a thread here about this issue in detail:

Thanks for the reply, a lot of numbers change very quickly, and I think it goes off while at '00' code, but then on the third try it goes past 00, and I see 00 multiple times during the booting up, which is normal. I don't think 00 should be connected to the problem, I checked my CPU installation, and everything is fine.

Just realized that this thread needed to be in Troubleshooting section, how do you delete this?

So I just built a new PC, and while everything works fine once it's started, for some reason it's taking 3 tries to boot up (doesn't happen when you reset/restart it). On its first ever boot, it also took 3 tries, but was able to boot properly on the first try after that, but now it's taking 3 tries again. It's like fans spin up for 1 second, then it shuts down, then that happens again, and then it finally boots up properly on the third try. I tried resetting BIOS too, and also tried resetting CMOS cell, really can't figure out if there's any setting that I should change (because I've tried everything I could think of), or it's because of power supply (which I've tested, it works fine on another system). I think it's the motherboard that might be causing this issue. Here's my specs: ASUS ROG Maximus XI Hero, latest BIOS Corsair RM850x Core i9 9900K MSI RTX 2080 Ti (vertically mounted using Cooler Master vertical GPU mount) 512 GB Samsung M.2 SATA SSD (960 Evo, I guess), 2 x 3 TB WD HDDs 2 x 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ 3200 MHz RAM Cooler Master ML360R AIO cooler Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic Additional Corsair LL120 fans + ARGB LED Strip Some additional info: I checked that I am doing everything properly, and that power is being supplied properly. It wakes up on first try if I power it down and don't cut the power supply to the motherboard off. Also tried changing the power cable, and connecting directly to the mains, without the UPS in between. I also tried removing both the RAM sticks, and in that case, it takes 2 tries to reach to a state where all the fans are spinning, plugging in RAM again makes it 3 (if it was a single try without RAM, I could conclude that the problem was with RAM). The MemOK switch is ON, which I checked is the default (which also shouldn't create issues AFAIK, as retraining memory takes ~30 seconds as per the manual).

Intel CPUs have Quick Sync which really helps with the render times. Most of the content creators have switched to Intel due to this reason.

Just found out that ASRock Z390 Taichi has an excellent 12 phase power delivery system with great overclocking potential for 9900K at $250-ish range. Will go with this one if MSI Doesn't have competitive boards in this range (cuz Asus seems to have cheaped out). I am hoping ASRock boards are also as good as ASUS boards for reliability as I've only used ASUS boards till now.

Did you watch the video? He addressed the pinned comment too. It wasn't about the settings, but about the choice of motherboards which wasn't good enough to let 9900K reach its highest freq and draw highest power.

I would have definitely waited, but I need a new system now, and I already bought case, PSU, 2080 Ti, RAM, cooler. Only CPU + Mobo are remaining, and I'll do video rendering + gaming (planning a 4K 144Hz monitor in future) so the 9900K is offering the best of both worlds.

So I watched Hardware Unboxed's recent 'Was Linus was wrong about 9900K temps?' video What he said was something I felt too, as Linus' Cinebench R15 results were lower than other reviewers, and consequently the power and temps too. I was planning to buy i9 9900k, with an Asus ROG STRIX Z390-E motherboard, which is a $250 motherboard. I don't understand what VRM Phases are, and how to check that out in a motherboard (do they provide these specs?), so I don't know how to check out for a motherboard which will let the 9900K go to highest frequencies (4.7 GHz?) on all cores, unlike (allegedly) Linus' test bench. I am guessing that the strix Z390-e won't be good enough, since the '4 Phase VRM' Maximus XI wasn't (allegedly) good enough too. So are there any options in the $250-ish range, that will be able to use the full power to make 9900K reach its full potential? (I got 360mm rad, so won't have to worry about temps that much). PS: Not saying that anyone of these guys is wrong/right, pretty sure Linus will address that later. I just want to make the right purchase.

Well yeah, I guess I overreacted. Everything did seem to work fine except for the coil whine. But it was a very serious level of coil whine, there are videos on Amazon and youtube of the coil whine with masterwatt series, it is a common issue with this line, it was so loud that it you could still hear it if you have music being played on low volume. The 'risking' other components part was unfair (although that's what a lot of people talked about when in comes to > Tier 2 PSUs), but I was really surprised to find an issue like this in a cooler master product (haven't had coil whine with any other PSU), especially since their other products are really good. A VS series PSU that my friend has also had its fan making noise, and this one also had serious level coil whine issues, so that's why I said that it's not worth bothering with these units for a higher end system.

Another thing to note is that these Asus and Acer monitors have the SAME panel made by the same company, so you could as well save some money by going with Acer. The only difference is the outer frame and design.

If you were on a 1080p monitor earlier, 2K will definitely be a big upgrade. A good news for you is that you don't have to cap the framerate at 60Hz, as these monitors have G-sync, which means your experience will be tear, stutter, and lag free. I'd say you should be running at around 70-90 fps with 'high' settings, but all frames will be very smooth. You'd never need to run this monitor locked at 60 Hz. So yes, this monitor is a decent pair with this GPU, even if you don't get 144Hz now, even 75Hz is a BIG upgrade from 60Hz, so good that you'd definitely feel that 60Hz was MUCH inferior, you can only imaging how awesome 144Hz will be, and when you upgrade your GPU, you'll be able to take advantage of full 144 frames. Again, CS:GO and similar e sports game will be easily handled at 2k@144Hz by a 1070.

Well, if we talk about what I specifically think, I just cancelled my shipped order for one of those Acer XB271HU monitors (1440p @ 144Hz) because I found out that Acer is going to release a 4K @ 144Hz monitor (Acer XV273K) for $900 soon. I know that my new RTX 2080 Ti (MSI Gaming X too btw) won't be able to handle 4K above 60Hz, but I think that even the desktop and scrolling experience on Windows is going to be worth it. I will also be able to game on it at 1440p, as if it was a 1440p@144Hz monitor, so that's a big advantage for me. You could also consider this, because you'll be able to get 4K resolution @ 144Hz for desktop and general crispness, and will be able to play 1440p, or 1080p @ 144Hz with your 1070 too.

CS:GO, Fortnite, Dota should be fine, don't know about Battlefield. I have a 1070 too, it's not going to perform well at 2K @ >60Hz for even older graphically demanding game. It's strictly 1440p@60Hz at this point.

Just an update for anyone in the same situation as me. I went with RM 850x, which will take some time to arrive, meanwhile since the 2080 Ti had arrived, I thought I could at least safely test it with the MasterWatt. I played Crysis 3 maxed out at 4K (got ~40 fps), so on load, the masterwatt started making a horrible coil whine. I recorded the video and contacted Amazon, and told them that this item was defective, so they agreed to take it back and refund the amount. So lesson learned, really don't cheap out on PSU, I wasn't expecting this from something having a Cooler Master name on it. Really not worth risking your expensive components. Maybe some other 80 Plus bronze PSU would've been fine, but really not worth taking chances.