Welcome to the Displays section, where everything's made up and the specs don't matter!
(EDIT: Please note this thread is quite outdated at this point; eventually I should get around to making an updated version, but that day is not today :P)
Response time and latency
Do you need a 5 ms response time or less for gaming?
Dynamic Contrast Ratio (DCR) – 1,000,000:1+ "Contrast Ratios" are Just Made-up Numbers
"You can't get audio through a DVI port!"
Isn't HDMI limited to 60 Hz?
"Humans can't see more than 60 Hz anyway!"
"Why are there TVs at 600+ Hz when monitors don't go beyond ≈144 Hz?"
"Does 1920×1080 scale perfectly on 3840×2160 (4K UHD) monitors? What exactly happens when you run a non-native resolution on a display?"
Does DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync/AMD FreeSync require a new monitor or will existing monitors be upgradeable with just a firmware update? Also, if a monitor has DisplayPort 1.2a input or higher, does that automatically mean it supports DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync?
S: His wife
John Bain, also known as TotalHalibut or Totalbiscuit has passed away this morning as confirmed by his wife, Genna Bait on Twitter. While John was a controversial person, he was widely known throughout the gaming industry and he was a pinnacle moment for consumer advocacy.
Earlier in the week his wife reported that there was some issues with his breathing and today, she confirmed his passing.
My thoughts on the matter: I'm just really sad after seeing this tweet I feared the worst for him. Literally speechless
FUCK CANCER
Final tweet from his account issued by Genna
make sure they are all the same refresh rate in the screen resolution > advance settings > monitor. It should work, i got my ASUS PB287Q (4K) and ASUS PG278Q (1440P) to work in surround 1x2 when I had both monitors sett to 1440p resolution and 60hz (max refresh of my 4K monitor). So it should work as long as the resolution is the same and the refresh rate of the monitor are set the same.
edit: check to see in the (screen resolution > advance settings > monitor) settings that your new display is recognized by windows for 144hz
Both retailers and manufacturers have very specific policies on this matter. Your local retailer may not honor the exchange / return unless there are a certain quantity or even quantity in a specified area unless you have purchased the extra in-store warranty. Also with the manufacturers, they may have a similar policy detailed.Though, for high end monitors, you are much better off!
In this case, if there aren't other reasons to avoid doing so, I would be going back to where it was purchased!
Please use the search function in your browser (Control+F) to find particular brands or models. My apologies if there are strange translations errors due to my English level.
And feel free to share this stuff with your friends!
(Article for the 11th period)
The conclusion part is still being edited.
Introduction:
If there is an unknown when being recommended and buying a product, it's the reliability of the product. The reputation of the manufacturer is there to reassure us, but from one model to another, the reliability can vary tremendously, and even well known manufacturers are not saved from having slip-ups.
Even though as we say in financial markets past performance is not an indicator of future performance, today we publish part of the statistics on return rates at our disposal. It is important to take a step back when looking at these numbers, after all a decent part of these products have already become obsolete. Nevertheless, these statistics are informative and allow us to point the finger at certain products or manufactures from which we hope improvements will come in the future.
All these numbers come from an unnamed large French online store, which provided the statistics to hardware.fr
How is a product declared defective? There are two possibilities. Either a technician will consider through an exchange such as a phone call with a customer shows that the product does not work, or if there is a doubt, the product in question will be tested to validate the failure of said product.
We have to add that these statistics are limited to products sold by this e-vendor, and returns done specifically to said vendor, which is not always the case because people will sometimes return the product to the manufacturer, however this is a minority of the cases during the first year of a purchase, especially the online retailer will pay for return shipping. Some products however incite direct manufacturer returns through return stickers in the product box, this is notably the case for watercooling kits from Corsair.
Unfortunately there exists no other medium to get more trustworthy statistics. After all, who would believe the return rates given directly from a product's manufacturer?
These return rates concern inventory sold between October 1st 2013 and April 1st 2014, for returns created before October 2014 or in other words 6 months to 1 year of product lifespan. The evolution of return rates generally forms a flattened U shape with a practically flat bottom. These numbers then concern the first part of the product life when return rates are high.
The statistics by brand are based on a minimum of 500 products sold, those by model with a minimum of 100 products sold.
Return rates are compared to the previous article published in April 2014.
As with the previous period, of note is an increase in return rates due to failure for motherboards. All manufacturers see their rates increase, even if it's in a minor way for MSI. This permits MSI to go from 4th to 2nd place, positions exchanged with ASRock, with Gigabyte staying in the lead. The different manufacturers are however all relatively close to each other.
Here are the 10 most returned models:
- 8,80% ASUS Rampage IV Extreme - 8,05% ASRock AD2550B-ITX - 7,93% ASRock FM2A88M Extreme4+ - 7,25% ASRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 - 7,20% ASUS Maximus VI Extreme - 5,95% ASRock 970 Pro3 R2.0 - 5,93% MSI Z87I - 5,56% Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 - 5,26% ASRock 990FX Extreme3 - 5,06% ASUS Maximus VI Formula - 5,05% ASRock FM2A55M-VG3
The Rampage IV Extreme was already in the front position 6 months ago. It might be partly to explain due to the important stress it's exposed to as a board for overclocking fanatics, nevertheless the rate is still very high. Other motherboards don't have the same excuse however, we can see that AsRock three AsRock AM3+ models with 4 stateOn note la présence de trois modèles AM3+ ASRock with 4 phase power designs with lower rates.
Broken down by chipset, the failure rate is as follows :
With Intel the failure rate is highest for the highest end chipset, probably due to the fact that it's the one that allows overclocking. Here are the rates obtained by manufacturer for Z87:
FSP Group is back in the lead after having lost it in the previous article. The rate for Cougar has attained pretty high levels getting further away from other manufacturers.
Here are the 5 most returned power supplies for this retailer:
- 5,31% Cooler Master Silent Pro M2 720W 80PLUS Bronze
- 4,70% Akasa Venom Power 750 - 4,69% Akasa Venom Power 850 80PLUS Gold - 4,46% Cooler Master G550M 80PLUS Bronze - 4,40% Be Quiet ! System Power 7 700 W 80PLUS Silver
Here are the return rates for power supplies betwen 500 and 550W:
- 4,46% Cooler Master G550M 80PLUS Bronze - 3,39% FSP RAIDER S550 550W 80PLUS Silver - 2,48% Zalman ZM-500LX - 2,26% Akasa Venom Power 550 - 1,84% Zalman ZM-500GS - 1,54% Cooler Master B-Series 500W - 1,49% Zalman ZM-500GT 80PLUS - 1,47% Corsair CX500 80PLUS Bronze - 1,44% Cooler Master GX 550W 80PLUS Bronze - 1,35% Thermaltake Smart SE 530W - 1,06% Be Quiet ! System Power 7 500 W 80PLUS Silver - 1,03% Corsair Builder Series VS550 - 0,92% Cougar PowerX 550 80PLUS Bronze - 0,90% Corsair CX500M 80PLUS Bronze - 0,81% Be Quiet ! Pure Power L8 530W CM 80PLUS Bronze - 0,80% Be Quiet ! Pure Power L8 500W 80PLUS Bronze - 0,68% FSP HEXA 500 - 0,68% Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 550W 80PLUS Gold - 0,64% Akasa Essential Plus 550 - 0,63% Cooler Master G500 Series 80PLUS Bronze - 0,00% Fractal Design Integra R2 500W
And now for those between 600 and 660W:
- 3,65% Cougar ST 600 - 3,57% Zalman ZM650-XG 80PLUS Gold - 2,83% Corsair RM650 80PLUS Gold - 2,59% Be Quiet ! System Power 7 600 W 80PLUS Silver - 2,56% Corsair CX600 80PLUS Bronze - 2,50% Seasonic P-660 Platinum 80PLUS Platinum - 2,38% Cooler Master G650M 80PLUS Bronze - 2,21% Corsair CS650 80PLUS Gold - 1,89% Antec High Current Gamer 620 80PLUS Bronze - 1,82% Cooler Master Silent Pro M2 620W 80PLUS Bronz - 1,80% Be Quiet ! Pure Power L8 600W 80PLUS Bronze - 1,46% Cooler Master G600 Series 80PLUS Bronze - 1,29% Zalman ZM-600LX - 0,95% Corsair Builder Series VS650 - 0,72% Akasa Cobra 650 - 0,68% Seasonic X-650 (SS-650KM3) 80PLUS Gold - 0,59% Corsair CX600M 80PLUS Bronze - 0,31% Cooler Master B-Series 600W - 0,00% FSP RAIDER S650 650W 80PLUS Silver
For the fifth period in a row, the ranking is unchanged. The failure rate for Corsair, which had increased a bit during the last analysis is going back down.
Here are the five most failure prone memory modules:
PNY which until now had the lowest failure rate is not in the ranking any more due to low non Quadro/Tesla sales volumes. Despite an increase in failure rates MSI gets the first place, an increase in failure rates we see across the board. It's HIS's first time in this ranking and it makes a noticeable entry... in last place.
The four highest failure rates are occupied by cards based on AMD Tahiti chips, but we also find 2 GeForce with numbers in the alarming two digit range. Here are the numbers attained when regrouping the numbers by GPU:
- 2,53% Radeon HD 7850 - 1,66% Radeon HD 7870 - 10,28% Radeon HD 7950 - 7,63% Radeon HD 7970
As in the previous period, Tahiti based cards (7950, 7970, 280X) are those which are most often taken back for failure. Litecoin mining might be the perfect excuse for these cards, but it is impossible to find out the impact this has on failure rates. This might partly explain it, but the numbers from the next period (sales form April to October 2014) the 280x are already at 6.83% despite the fact that GPU mining has lost the interest of most. We can then assume that there is a different problem with these cards.
Here are the failure rates obtained by GPU (as always for models selling more than 100 copies):
Good news for our date, the rates are down across the board except for Toshiba. This one exchanges spots with Western Digital and goes form 2nd to 4th place. We have to precise however that unlike the 3 others, returns for Toshiba can ONLY be done through the retailer, so the number may be a bit inflated. For the 2nd time in a row, there are no hard drives with return rates superior to 5%.
Here are the 5 least dependable models:
- 4,76% WD Black WD4001FAEX - 4,24% WD Black WD3001FAEX - 3,83% WD SE WD3000F9YZ - 2,56% HGST Travelstar 7K1000 - 2,39% Toshiba DT01ACA300
Here is the ranking attained for 3.5" drives sold in more than 100 copies :
2 TB :
- 2,30% Toshiba DT01ACA200 - 1,13% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001 - 1,01% WD Green WD20EZRX - 0,79% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST2000DM001 - 0,77% WD Red WD20EFRX - 0,70% WD Black WD2003FZEX - 0,63% WD AV-GP WD20EURS - 0,56% WD Black WD2002FAEX - 0,52% Seagate Enterprise Value ST2000NC001 - 0,44% WD SE WD2000F9YZ - 0,30% Seagate NAS ST2000VN000 - 0,21% WD RE WD2000FYYZ - 0,00% Seagate Surveillance ST2000VX000 - 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST2000NM0033
3 TB :
- 4,24% WD Black WD3001FAEX - 3,83% WD SE WD3000F9YZ - 2,39% Toshiba DT01ACA300 - 1,89% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001 - 1,50% WD Red WD30EFRX - 1,12% Seagate NAS ST3000VN000 - 1,08% WD Green WD30EZRX - 0,57% Seagate Enterprise Value ST3000NC002 - 0,36% Seagate Surveillance ST3000VX000
4 TB :
- 4,76% WD Black WD4001FAEX - 1,95% WD RE WD4000FYYZ - 1,87% Seagate NAS ST4000VN000 - 1,67% WD Red WD40EFRX - 1,58% Seagate Desktop HDD.15 ST4000DM000 - 1,28% WD Green WD40EZRX - 0,63% HGST Deskstar 7K4000 - 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST4000NM0033
Samsung retains the first place, but Intel and Sandisk are a hair away from Samsung. Some will note the absence of OCZ, which was the leading brand for failure rates on these statistics for years. The brand is now barely in sale at the retailer from which we get these numbers.
Here are the 5 SSD models with the highest return rates:
- 3,27% Kingston SSDNow mS200 mSATA 120 Go
- 2,84% Corsair Force GS 240 Go - 2,54% Corsair Neutron 64 Go - 1,44% Corsair Force LS 120 Go - 1,34% OCZ Agility 3 480 Go
Surprise, there is still an OCZ! But it's failure rate remains acceptable this time. In detail here are the failure rates for SSDs 120-128GB 2.5":
1,44% Corsair Force LS 120 Go - 0,70% Crucial M500 - 0,66% Kingston V300 - 0,66% Corsair Force GT - 0,45% Sandisk Extreme II - 0,37% Sandisk Ultra Plus - 0,29% Kingston HyperX 3K - 0,29% Samsung 840 Pro - 0,07% Samsung 840 EVO - 0,00% Corsair Neutron - 0,00% Intel 530 - 0,00% Sandisk SSD
- 1,34% OCZ Agility 3 480 Go - 0,27% Samsung 840 EVO - 0,15% Crucial M500
Conclusion:
Compared to the previous period, failure rates evolved as follows:
(this article is period 11)
- Motherboards 2,82% (vs 2,32% in p10, 1,90% in p9, 1,99% in p8) - Power Supplies 1,37% (vs 1,36% in p10, 1,50% in p9, 1,45% in p8) - Memory 0,82% (vs 0,89% in p10, 0,76% in p9, 0,81% in p8) - Graphics Cards 2,98% (vs 2,23% in p10, 2,10% in p9, 2,13% in p8) - Hard Drives 0,82% (contre 0,97% in p10, 1,07% in p9, 1,53% in p8) - SSD 0,44% (contre 0,92% in p10, 1,27% in p9, 3,27% in p8)
The failure rates for Motherboards and Graphics Cards is one again on the rise. In contrario, Memory, Hard Drives and SSDs are in decline while PSUs had a stable rate.
To conclude here is the next period covering sales between April and October 2014 the 5 products having attained the highest return rates per category (with the usual minimum of 100 copies.) These numbers will all increase by the next article, the ownership period not being long enough for our usual 6-12 month ownership cycle, but it already allows us to see some products which may have issues:
Motherboards:
- 5,56% ASRock FM2A75 Pro4+ - 5,21% ASUS H87M-E C2 - 4,96% ASUS Maximus VI Formula C2 - 4,76% MSI Z97 PC Mate - 4,50% MSI Z87-G41 PC Mate - 4,38% ASRock Z77 Extreme4 - 4,38% ASUS Z87-PLUS - 4,31% ASUS Z87I-PRO - 4,25% MSI Z97 GAMING 5 - 4,19% MSI Z97 GAMING 3 - 4,17% ASUS H97M-E
As a bonus, here are the failure rates so far for Z97 Motherboards:
- 4,76% MSI Z97 PC Mate - 4,25% MSI Z97 GAMING 5 - 4,19% MSI Z97 GAMING 3 - 2,38% MSI Z97-G45 GAMING - 2,24% ASUS MAXIMUS VII HERO - 2,10% Gigabyte GA-Z97-D3H - 1,54% ASUS Z97-A - 1,37% ASUS MAXIMUS VII RANGER - 1,37% Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 3 - 1,17% ASUS Z97-K - 0,88% ASUS Z97I-PLUS - 0,00% MSI Z97 GAMING 7
Power Supplies:
- 8,00% Corsair AX1200i 80PLUS Platinum - 5,44% Akasa Venom Power 1000 80PLUS Gold - 3,23% FSP RAIDER S750 750W 80PLUS Silver - 2,74% Akasa Venom Power 750 - 2,36% Seasonic P-660 Platinum 80PLUS Platinum
500-550W category :
- 2,23% Akasa Essential Plus 550 - 1,75% Corsair CS550 80PLUS Gold - 1,73% Cooler Master G550M 80PLUS Bronze - 1,69% Corsair Builder Series VS550 - 1,59% Zalman ZM-500GT 80PLUS - 1,52% Be Quiet ! Alimentation Pure Power L8-530W CM 80PLUS Bronze - 1,02% Be Quiet ! Alimentation Pure Power L8 500W 80PLUS Bronze - 0,94% Be Quiet ! Alimentation System Power 7 500 W 80PLUS Silver (bulk) - 0,93% FSP HEXA 500 - 0,90% FSP RAIDER S550 550W 80PLUS Silver - 0,87% Cooler Master B-Series 500W - 0,73% Akasa Venom Power 550 - 0,57% Cooler Master G500 Series 80PLUS Bronze - 0,36% Corsair CX500M 80PLUS Bronze - 0,27% Corsair CX500 80PLUS Bronze
600-660W :
- 2,19% Cooler Master G650M 80PLUS Bronze - 1,46% Be Quiet ! Alimentation Pure Power L8-630W CM 80PLUS Bronze - 1,15% Corsair Builder Series VS650 - 1,11% Seasonic X-650 (SS-650KM3) 80PLUS Gold - 1,09% Corsair RM650 80PLUS Gold - 1,02% Corsair CS650 80PLUS Gold - 0,85% FSP RAIDER S650 650W 80PLUS Silver - 0,82% Be Quiet ! Alimentation Pure Power L8 600W 80PLUS Bronze - 0,65% Corsair CX600M 80PLUS Bronze - 0,60% Be Quiet ! Alimentation System Power 7 600 W 80PLUS Silver (bulk) - 0,55% Corsair CX600 80PLUS Bronze - 0,28% Cooler Master B-Series 600W
- 3,05% WD Red WD60EFRX - 2,78% Toshiba DT01ACA300 - 2,38% WD Green WD40EZRX - 2,14% HGST Ultrastar A7K2000 - 1,85% WD SE WD3000F9YZ
Et par capacité voici les détails des modèles, à commencer par les 2 To :
- 1,40% Toshiba DT01ACA200
- 1,18% WD Green WD20EZRX
- 1,13% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST2000DX001
- 0,92% Seagate NAS ST2000VN000
- 0,83% WD Red WD20EFRX
- 0,80% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST2000DM001
- 0,67% WD SE WD2000F9YZ
- 0,61% WD RE WD2000FYYZ
- 0,38% WD Black WD2003FZEX
- 0,32% Seagate Surveillance ST2000VX000
- 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Value ST2000NC001
- 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST2000NM0033
- 0,00% WD AV-GP WD20EURX
Puis les 3 To :
- 2,78% Toshiba DT01ACA300
- 1,85% WD SE WD3000F9YZ
- 1,24% WD Red WD30EFRX
- 1,19% WD Green WD30EZRX
- 1,18% Seagate NAS ST3000VN000
- 0,98% Seagate Surveillance ST3000VX000
- 0,94% Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 ST3000DM001
- 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Value ST3000NC002
Et enfin les 4 To :
- 2,38% WD Green WD40EZRX
- 1,22% WD Red WD40EFRX
- 1,18% WD Black WD4003FZEX
- 1,08% Seagate Desktop SSHD ST4000DX001
- 0,83% Seagate NAS ST4000VN000
- 0,80% Seagate Desktop HDD.15 ST4000DM000
- 0,00% HGST Deskstar 7K4000
- 0,00% Seagate Enterprise Capacity ST4000NM0033
- 0,00% HGST Deskstar NAS
Voici les 5 SSD avec les plus fort taux de retour sur la période à venir :
- 1,89% Crucial M550 256 Go mSATA - 1,52% Sandisk Extreme II 480 Go - 1,07% Sandisk Extreme II 240 Go - 0,75% Crucial M550 128 Go - 0,74% Sandisk Extreme Pro 240 Go
Et voici les chiffres pour les SSD SATA 2.5" 120-128 Go :
- 0,75% Crucial M550 - 0,50% Crucial M500 - 0,34% Sandisk SSD - 0,26% Sandisk Ultra Plus - 0,22% Kingston HyperX 3K - 0,12% Crucial MX100 - 0,05% Kingston V300 - 0,05% Samsung 840 EVO - 0,00% Corsair Force LS - 0,00% Intel 530 - 0,00% Samsung 840 Pro - 0,00% Samsung 850 Pro - 0,00% Sandisk Extreme II
Puis les 240-256 Go :
- 1,07% Sandisk Extreme II - 1,02% Sandisk Ultra Plus - 0,74% Sandisk Extreme Pro - 0,34% Crucial M550 - 0,31% Kingston HyperX 3K - 0,30% Kingston V300 - 0,30% Crucial M500 - 0,26% Crucial MX100 - 0,08% Samsung 840 EVO - 0,07% Samsung 840 Pro - 0,00% Intel 530 - 0,00% Samsung 850 Pro
Et enfin les 480-512 Go :
- 1,52% Sandisk Extreme II - 0,60% Crucial M550 - 0,26% Samsung 840 Pro - 0,22% Crucial MX100 - 0,09% Samsung 840 EVO - 0,00% Crucial M500
Thank you as always to the monsieurs at hardware.fr for always putting out great content including this article
PS: hopefully this makes it onto the WAN show like last time!
I like seeing cool tech and if that tech happens to be expensive, then so be it. If I can't afford it, so be it as well. Projects like 16k gaming or "X gamers - 1 PC/CPU" are based on ridiculusly expensive hardware but are fun to watch. Hardline tubing is fun to watch, though I wouldn't necessarily advertise LTT as the place to look for it. There is only so many times you can see people do builds for less than $500.
That being said, when you look at LTT video history, you will still see a mix of everything (as it should be) - from last month you have some expensive product reviews, some road trips, a fairly entertaining build log, some retro nostalgia stuff and DIY stuff as well.
Technical and niche videos can only get you so far. There is a reason why GamersNexus, while highly regarded for their quality of work, have so few subscribers in comparison to LTT.
I avoid front mounted rads to keep my two 980ti under 60 degree C and fans off; I am working off the theory that using the GPU fans less will make them last longer.
USD 1200 in India? Tax problems? Anyways, if not in a hurry, try to wait for a sale. He is somewhat correct about the initial problems being over part. Make sure (if possible) that they ship you a board with the latest BIOS if you are sporting NVMEs or planning a new RAID install on NVMEs or any RAID drives. See if they offer a CPU+mobo+memory bundle as a bundled offer is likely safest in terms of out of the box compatibility. I am personally using the Asrock X399 Fatality, and can vouch for the reliability of the board due to personal experience. I have yet to find good memory for it though as I am basically borrowing a pair of sticks from friends who help out with testing to try to find the right RAM. AMD Ryzen branded RAM is hard to find here.
Not sure about your workloads, but are you certain you won't benefit from faster storage?
Also, not sure if it will be an issue, but the Aurous Gaming 7 has only one LAN port built in. The third slot looks like a cool PCIe 3.0 x16, but should be only a PCIe 2.0 x4 at best; don't be fooled! Make sure to turn off all RGB if you want to maximize power savings over long periods of usage.
Also, the Coolermaster 240L doesn't seem to come with the TR bracket out of the box (see here). May want to double check if the unit you are ordering comes with the bracket for free. See this compatibility list; note that the black tick marks denote coolers that need the bracket to be acquired separately.
The PSU should be sufficient, but may want to double check the CPU cables that come with the PSU and the CPU cables needed for your motherboard.
Though realistic scenarios have to be tested with each case I guess.
Raid: I choose R6 TG because of number of HDD it can keep. Didn't thought of a raid yet but a point that I will have to think. I was planning to keep a disk just to backup projects in case of a disk failure. TR options are actually lucrative, objectively.
People have done some of those EXTREME MEGA TASKING tests
But simply put just think of it like having 2 R7 1800Xs in the same system, pretty much just throw 4 cores/8 threads to whatever program you want and it'll run fine.
AFAIK @done12many2 has both platforms (X299 and X399) and tested both of them in various scenarios, so he might be able to shed some light on your situation.
I have the Cryorig A80 which has two 140 fans (280 rad) on top (exhaust). The Fractal R6 TG should be able to handle a 240/280/360 on top, but I am confused by what they mean by 'standard' and 'open' layout for the top (see their product page). I vote for above the CPU/top of the case, as you have indicated long hours of usage at 100% which will heat up the air to air cooler levels and that hot air will pass over all the components inside if coming from the front. Heat reduces lifespan of components so my vote goes with putting the rad at the top or anywhere except exhausting hot air into the inside of your case. My 2 cents.
Another thing I forgot to mention, if you RAID your drives, getting Intel will require you to ensure that the board you are getting comes with the VROC key embedded or otherwise to enable you to use RAID. Older batch of boards and those who bought them can't get them as Intel is not selling VROC to the public afaik.
You are entirely correct about long hours of full throttle usage bringing the performance difference between air and AIOs on par (watch this if you haven't already). The problem with air coolers is clearance with RAM, clearance with the top PCIe x16 socket on 7 slot ATX/E-ATX motherboards, and the height of the cooler blocking the side panel on some cases from closing. Plus on some motherboard models you will see extra height on the VRM heatsink which may interfere as well. I am also ignoring the fact that most air coolers are a REAL PAIN to install. An AIO helps with all of that. The risk of leak is rare but real and one I choose to take given the compatibility constraints I faced and the coolers available here.
Thanks, mate for the info.
1. Regarding air coolers, I believe none of the youtube testers uses an overnight (12hr) burn in to measure or test AIO's results. So, i was a bit sceptic about the results. As I will render overnight an air cooler seems good as of now. Air coolers have proven over the years.
But people are recommending AIOs nowadays. Hopefully will get one this time. Maybe a thick 240 rad AIO. Enermax and Cryorig are not available in India. Corsair, Noctua, Coolermaster and Nzxt models only. So I am trying to get a Corsair Hydro 115i maybe. Let's see. After the processor selection, I will nail an AIO.
Not sure if this will be helpful to you or not, but I have an acquaintance (photographer whose home I went to to buy used HDDs) who bought a TR system for work. His main complaints:
1) His 1950x was slower than his i7 5960x for Adobe; he was really frustrated with optimization.
2) He had to overclock to reach 2900 speed on memory and was frustrated at the lack of support for 128GB at 3200 speeds.
Sorry I cannot provide numbers and that this is merely anecdotal. :-(
As a fellow 1950x owner I could relate somewhat, but for my needs and the sale I got mine on, it was worth it (plus I don't Adobe).
I see you have a preference for air coolers; Noctua has a bunch that may suit your needs. I would recommend a water cooler though for TR4, given the long render times you specified; I use the Cryorig A80 on my 1950x and it provides almost the same performance as that of the photographers's Enermax TR4 AIO with the added benefit of cooling surrounding parts.
All said and done, if your work is heavily Adobe dependent, get Intel imho. People kept talking about optimization coming soon for AMD's last generation and the one before... never happened afaik. :-(
Hello, folks n Linus (if you ever read),
Let me start by saying that the build I am making is completely for professional bread and butter purpose. Thus it's not a fanboy or fangirl topic. Back 2017 we had 2 new HEDTs platforms.
Price: intel wise was on the roof but now things have calmed down a bit. AMD too have some discounts going on right now. I am switching to a newer build from i7 6700k to either 7940x or 1950x, though this topic has been discussed lots of times, Thanks if you put your views again for me.
Price wise: Indian price converted to USD, price inclusive of taxes.
General Components:
Corsair V 3000 Mhz Ram 64gb: 872 USD
1070 ti : 670 usd
Fractal R6 TG: 197 usd
Total : 1739 USD
Intel Option:
Asus Prime x299a: 416 Usd
7940x: 1550 Usd
Total: 2000 Usd
AMD option:
Asus Prime x399 eatx: 416 usd
1950x: 1230 usd
Total: 1646 USD
Delta: ~19% Intel > AMD
Price to performance equation:
Vray: 7940x is 3% faster than 1950x (negligible, but for a 10-hour render it is almost 18 minutes. Food for thought? Single digit numbers are worthless for comparison bcoz it may differ system to system)
Source: https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/cpu?search_string=1950
https://benchmark.chaosgroup.com/cpu?search_string=7940
Pugetsystems: As per pudget the difference is almost 32 %.
Adobe Premiere:
I am not sure which is better for me, stability will be the most important factor. Referring to pugetsystem recommendations. Also, read that TR has some issues with Adobe Products. Yes, architecture not optimised but how can I help? Freinds please put your views. Stability over performance. Price anyways its heading skywards.
Photoshop: Threadripper is definitely overall slower than Skylake-X for Photoshop. If at all it matters in 10 to 15%
Lumion: Needs a graphics card to render? I have selected a budget 1070 8gb. Best budget card price to performance.
Unreal: Here is a para from pugetsystems. Never got the opportunity to try myself. Help anybody working in Unreal.
"For those that need the best possible performance for heavily threaded tasks like building lighting and compiling the engine from source, we offer a number of high core count CPUs depending on both your budget and the performance you need for these tasks. The Core i9 7900X is roughly 10% faster than the Core i7 7820X for tasks like light baking and compiling while the Core i9 7940X, Core i9 7960X, and Core i9 7980XE will be even faster. Note that these CPUs tend to be slightly slower for most other tasks, however, so we typically only recommend on of these high core count CPUs for users that spend a significant amount of time building lighting or compiling."
Corona: Again a single digit performance factor between 1950x and 7940x.
https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/cpu/1950x/all
https://corona-renderer.com/benchmark/cpu/7940x/all
.
I started with Pentium 4 back in the year 2000. Used it quite a lot and for almost 6 years. It stood strong with me. It went some rough rides across the country, I took in younger years. Travelled almost 2.5k kms with a bulky CRT :). I feel sad don't have any pic of my P4. Then switched to AMD phenom 1090 black. wow, six cores in the year 2010. Here are some images if you care.(Attached)
I sold my Phenom and Asus mobo to a fanboy. Happily took home with love and respect.
Coming to the today year 2018: I am confused with 7940x or 1950x.
Here are my observations:
1950x
1. Superb performance for Multithreaded programs.
2. Very fewer mobo options.(+- 6?)
3. Memory problems, Courtesy: forums
4. Ideal power draws more than Intel counterparts. Important because not all the time I will be rendering.
5. Lower Single thread performance. The feeling of having a fast computer.
6. Future upgradeability options seem to be attractive. What TR 2 will bring is still a surprise. If it's just an incremental upgrade then 10 to 15% performance enhancement. Again AMD surprises all. 32 core 64 threads future, I don't believe that yet as ideal power draw will be massive and clock speed will go down to keep that in check, typical server chip.
7940x
1. Similar multi-threaded performance compared to 1950x but almost 22% more expensive. (Machine hours do counts, consists of 20 to 25% of my workload. Render and edit final presentation for the client)
2. No compromise on single thread performance. Very important as my 60 to 70% of work times (Man hours) programs need single thread performance. Read viewport navigation and modelling. I don't want to downgrade from an i7 6700k viewpoint on single thread performance. (The client pays for man hours)
3. Though my budget gets Asus Prime, but lots of options available. Inspires confidence.
4. Choosing memory options easy, your thought?
5. I can find a cooler made for i9. Peace of Mind. Does it effect anyways compared to 1950x CPU coolers? mental block. Noctua TR4 availability in India questionable.
6. VRM problems? I won't overclock neither I am going to install any overclocking utility. Anyways my computer runs more than 16 hours a day. Overclocking will underutilize the CPU power under light loads that 60% to 70% of my workload.
3rd Option:
I keep the i7 6700k with 32gigs ram for all the modelling and texturing and editing job. Make a 1950x rendering slave.
Challenges: (Mostly additional cost)
1. NAS drive required for file sharing.
2. Gigabit switch to facilitate the high-speed file transfer.
3. Power draw from the wall when both systems are on.
4. Will lose the interactive test renders of a high-end system as I have to send back and forth the file for render. or can use the slave workstation as distributed renderer but in that case, power draw from the wall will be higher. Both systems full on high on usage.
5. Space to accommodate the setup.
6. Power backup will have to be updated too.
Share your views on 7940x, 1950x or 3rd option of client-server sought of setup. The main point of your suggestion is that I don't want to go back in the memory lane after buying the CPU. It's like the girl you loved in college and never proposed. Now after marriage every now and then you think about her.
The shutdowns were happening before the Specter and Meltdown patches were out. I have checked temperatures and they seem normal (below 50C). All fans are screaming and working. Add in cards seem fine. I will disassemble the whole thing and clean it out. I will also gently flex the motherboard once it is out to maybe find out if it is a solder joint.
Archon42 reacted to Glenwing in Display Technology FAQ / Mythbuster
Archon42 got a reaction from pKc in 1950x or 7940x for 3d rendering and editing/ bread and butter
