With how he was talking about it, it was 100% created to profit off the drama.
All he needed to do was say "i'm sorry, we messed up, here's the warranty". that's it, nothing more. instead he goes on to make a shirt mocking the situation, making excuses and playing the victim by saying "So it comes down to trust no matter what, and i thought you guys saw me the same way, which was kind of heartbreaking actually"
i don't think it does at all. i watched the original wan show and nothing was taken out of context in this video. what do you think was wrong about steve's coverage?
It's a generation older than nvidia 20 series. From memory it slightly leapfrogged the 1070 when it came out, leading nvidia to release the 1070 Ti as counter. Vega 56 would fall behind 2060, 3060 in use today.
There is no tail chasing. It's pretty straight forward: the competitors of a CPU are whatever CPUs come out during its lifetime before the next release. That's usually just one or two generations, but sometimes more.
FX 300 series competed against 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, and 7000 series
Zen 1000 series competed against 7000 and 8000 series
Zen 2000 series competed against 8000 and 9000 series
Zen 3000 series competed against 9000 and 10000 series
Zen 5000 series competed against 10000, 11000, and 12000 series
Xbox Game Pass, or Xbox Game Pass for PC? Two different things. I have the latter and yes, you can play e.g. the new Flight Sim just fine without having to buy it.
I have yet to see any evidence that the 140mm rad in that case is terrible.
Any $30 cooler thin enough to fit in that space would be outperformed by an AIO anyways. If it was a standard size (160mm) tower cooler, then yes it would meet or exceed the AIO's ability to cool and/or operate quieter.
@APasz I'm going to hit you up with a few quotes and address some of your comments individually, and try my best to explain what I can. Seems like some of the things you have said may not be entirely accurate or may be based on outdated information, so I'd like to help clear it up not only for yourself but for anyone else who may be reading who might not be aware. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and if I know the answer I'll do my best to try and explain it.
This probably isn't the best way to calculate the wattage. You can kind of ballpark guesstimate where it might be from TDP, but as addressed already TDP does not equal power consumption, especially on things like Intel CPUs which can run above TDP for periods of time.
The way I personally prefer to calculate the wattage requirements of a system is to look up reviews that measure the power consumption of individual components using proper testing equipment (such as current clamps). You can put a current clamp on the EPS12V cable to the CPU and that will give you a very good representation of how much power the CPU is consuming. Likewise if done properly you can do the same with PCIe devices (graphics cards). The highest power draw components in a PC that you should be concerned about are the CPU and the Graphics Card(s). Other things such as fans, RGB, HDDs, etc do not consume a lot of power on their own, but when you add them all up it may be up to 50 or so watts depending on the system.
Alternatively some media outlets will measure entire system power consumption, which will be less exact, but still close enough to get a general idea of how much power you should expect a system to consume.
Basically you should look at the measured power consumption of parts, rather than trying to guess it yourself. I quite like Tom's Hardware reviews as they do a good job with individual component measurements and have an extensive catalogue of tests that will cover most hardware, however other outlets also do such testing as well and Gamers Nexus has recently moved to doing individual component power consumption testing as well.
A good quality power supply rated to output 400w continuously should have no issue running a system that consumes less than 400w. If they are coming back after 6-12 months with a PSU failure then it's likely the quality of the PSU being used (there aren't that many quality 400w units), and not expressly due to the load put on it. Though, I'm assuming that it was a hypothetical scenario you were referencing so I won't get too hung up on this.
There seems to be two main issues here you're touching on.
PSUs aren't capable of running at their rated output for extended periods of time
PSUs are more efficient at 50% load (or some other arbitary figure)
Both of these are incorrect.
Continuous Output
The output rating on a power supply is for continuous output, and is rated at a certain ambient temperature. Depending on the power supply it may be rated between 30°C to 50°C. Most "decent" power supplies will be rated at least 40°C ambient temperature, with high end units often rated at 50°C ambient. Some low end budget units may be rated at 30°C. Some really poor quality units' output may only be rated at 25°C (EVGA N1 for example), and those should most definitely be avoided at all cost.
On some particularly old or poor quality units (eg. absolute junk that claims it's a "750w PSU" despite being only able to deliver 400w on the 12v rail) may advertise what they call "Peak Output". This is basically entirely worthless and doesn't really mean anything. As far as I'm aware there's no standards or definitions on what "Peak Output" is how how long it should be able to sustain that peak output for.
Thankfully, no self respecting power supply will show "Peak Output" on its label. Anything worth buying would show "Continuous Output".
Continuous output is what it says - It is what the PSU is capable of outputting continuously, ie. 24/7 365. When operating within the temperature range the PSU is rated for within the continuous output range the power supply will perform within spec and will meet it's 80+ efficiency claims.
If you over load a power supply, or operate it in temperatures outside its operating range - for example operating a 550w PSU rated at 30C at 650w in a 45C hotbox, then (if protections don't trip to shut it down) you will see a range of issues with the power supply including but not limited to; de-rated efficiency, less voltage regulation (voltage drops as current rises too high), higher ripple (potentially going out of spec), and potentially even failure.
This only applies to power supplies that aren't lying on the label. If you're buying a $15 750w Power Supply that sounds too good to be true, then it will probably shut down at 300w load. That's not because power supplies can't run at their rated output continuously - It's because that PSU is a piece of junk and shouldn't be used.
TLDR; Any good quality power supply will happily run at 100% load continuously for extended periods of time without issue. It's only an issue if you're talking about power supplies that are operating outside of the rated operating range or are junk (lying on the label, etc)
PSUs are most efficient at 50%
The entire "PSUs are most efficient at 50%" started simply because the 80+ efficiency testing for power supplies rated power supplies for efficiency at three load levels - 20% load, 50% load - 100% load. The efficiency target for the 50% load was higher than the 20% and 100% figure, which lead many people to think that 50% is a sweet spot for efficiency where the power supply is greatly more efficient.
This is largely untrue, misconceived, or overstated.
The efficiency of a power supply depends entirely on the individual model and the design of the unit. Most* modern power supplies tend to peak at approximately 30% load with a very slow and gradual efficiency drop towards 100%.
As an example of a modern PSU's efficiency curve, here is the Corsair RM750x efficiency curve.
You can see a very sudden and sharp rise in efficiency up to around 10%, when it gradually increases towards 20% load before peaking somewhere around 30-40% load. Then there is a very slight and gradual decline in efficiency towards 100%.
The efficiency difference between a power supplies peak efficiency and other loads is highly overstated and exaggerated. This "peak" however is very slight, and the difference between 30% load and 70% load may be within a range of less than 1% efficiency. The difference between 50% load and 100% load may be around 2% or so. Something that is not going to cause a noticeable difference in your electricity bill.
Another thing to consider is since efficiency tends to be lowest at low loads, by buying a higher wattage unit than required you may fall in to a lower efficiency level at lower/idle loads - which is where a lot of systems spend most of their time. For example a 1000W PSU at idle using 60w may only be around 70% efficient.
If efficiency is important to you, then you should look at more efficient units, rather than higher wattage units. It's likely that an 80+ Bronze unit is less efficient at 50% load (85% min) than an 80+ gold unit is at 100% load (87% min).
For a system that requires 350w, for the cost of an 80+ Bronze 750w unit to reach "50% peak" you could likely afford a good quality 450w or 550w 80+ Gold unit.
Two things to consider when looking at the 80+ efficiency standards.
1) They chose 3 values spread out across the load of the power supply to represent the load across a full range. 20%, 50%, and 100% are just spread out to capture low load, mid load, and full load on the unit. If they only measured one point (say, 100%) then PSU manufacturers could make a PSU that is efficient only at that load, but highly inefficient at other loads. By spreading the testing out over the full range of the power supply it ensures that PSU manufacturers make efficient units at all loads.
2) The 80+ efficiency standards are over 15 years old. They were brought in when different designs and technologies were used in power supplies. At the time there weren't any 80+ units and when making an 80+ bronze efficient unit was actually considered high end. Nowadays with modern designs 80+ bronze is basically guaranteed even with budget PSU designs, with 80+ gold easily achievable with the use of LLC resonant converters and other such designs.
Back in 2005 the efficiency curve looked different than what it looks like on modern units. The "PSUs are most efficient at 50% load" may have been more true on older units, however on modern units this tends not to be the case. (Though, you still need to check efficiency of each model as depending on the designs used efficiency curves may vary)
See Continuous Output section above.
A PSU rated to 750w continuous output can provide 750w over a continuous period, not over an "amount of time".
It's efficiency at 100% is included in 80+ efficiency testing, so it will need to meet efficiency standards for 100% load in order to use the 80+ efficiency branding and logo. As shown in the efficiency section above, there is a gradual drop in efficiency towards and beyond 100% load, however it's not a significant drop in efficiency and is not concern.
Any decent PSU should not catch fire while operating within its operating range - Or at all. If operating outside of a safe range it should have appropriate protections to trip and shut down the power supply before a fire is started. This obviously does not apply to junk power supplies without protections, which is why they're not recommended.
Operating a power supply outside of its rated operating range, overloading the unit, should not cause a "Short". A short is where electricity is bridged from one circuit to another. This should not occur if the PSU is overloaded, unless there is otherwise failure within the components of the PSU which cause the short.
You are correct that the rated output is indeed what is supplied to the system and measured after efficiency losses from the wall. So a 400w PSU at 90% efficiency will be pulling 445w or so from the wall AC power. This, however, is not an issue as power supplies are rated for Continuous Output power. They're rated at what they can output to the system, not rated for the input prior to efficiency loss.
OTP = Over Temperature Protection. This will trigger to shut down a power supply if the temperature at a given point within the PSU reaches a point considered unsafe. This isn't related to efficiency, and would more likely trip due to something like fan failure or dust build up.
That was longer than I was expecting. Hopefully that explains a lot of it for you, however if you or anyone else does have any questions feel free to ask.
Also, I'm not perfect, so if I've made any errors feel free to correct me so that I too can learn from my mistakes!
Well, technically I have the 65XF9005 because Sweden, but yeah, they're the same.
Input lag is low enough for me. I'm not the most sensitive, but it's probably around what rtings measured for 1080p 120 (12.9 ms). I have no complaints in either Forza Horizon 4 (in HDR) or Injustice 2, both using a wireless Xbox one controller and Microsofts wireless adapter (not BT).
Broadwell E can be annoying to OC, especially with XMP or if you have a chip with a weak IMC. Ignore the ram to begin with and make sure the BCLK is 100. Set the multiplier for all cores to 42x, the voltage to... 1.34V and see if it's stable. Then either increase the multiplier or decrease the voltage. After that, OC the ram. Instead of using XMP, OC it manually. Set the speed, timings and voltage to what it's supposed to be. If you're unstable, bump down the speed and/or timings.
Overclocking cache on BW-E is really not worth it (very little performance gains for a lot of heat and power draw), so 27x is good.
I have a 6850k that I got to 4.4GHz @ 1.35V with DDR4 at 3000 mhz, and a 6900k that I got to 4.3 GHz @ 1.32V using the same ram, but at 2800 MHz. The IMC on the 6900k is weaker. I could also clock both higher, but it got too hot and loud for my taste and my cooler.
Why not get a different cooler to begin with? The original fan is pretty efficient and you're going to have worse performance with a lower rpm rgb fan.
fabarati got a reaction from ivanrcks95 in Just for fun, your GPU timeline..png "Funny")
fabarati got a reaction from jtomasrl in TV for 1440p gaming
fabarati got a reaction from MVollrath50 in Having trouble overclocking, please help! 6800k on a ASRock Extreme4 motherboard
.png "Funny"){kind=small}