Get-In-Da-Robot

So I have a Razer Basilisk V3 that has been randomly disconnecting for some time now. Sometimes it won't even reconnect and I have to unplug and replug it to connect again. I've tried about everything, swapped out the unit for a new one, different USB ports, adjusted the power management for the device and usb hub in device manager, and updated my motherboard BIOS to multiple iterations to no avail. My setup is an ASUS X570 Tuf Gaming mobo, 5800x, 3090FE, 32gb 3600mhz GSkill, 850w EVGA G3 PSU, 6 system fans with corsair H150I capellix cooler, basically everything's RGB and no overclocks save for the memory profile. At this point I'm wondering if my PSU is defective. It was replaced by EVGA once for causing random reboots, so maybe this unit is having issues as well? Am I barking up the wrong tree or would it be beneficial to upgrade to something like a 1000w PSU?

Just purchased a Ryzen7-5800x to upgrade from my i7-7700k. Currently have four 8gb sticks of Trident Z at 3000mhz cl15. Is it worth upgrading ram? Gaming usually the most intensive thing I'll do, but may get back into music production and am curious if it might be worth it for that application as well. Have a Samsung G7 Odyssey 240hz 1440p monitor and a 2080 currently, planning to upgrade to 3080 when they exist. Tend to value lower settings for higher fps.

Hey guys, I'm having trouble enabling Dolby Digital 5.1 on my LG TV from my graphics card. My Setup is Gtx 1080, HDMI to LG C9, C9 to Sonos 5.1 via optical. Every other device I have connected is able to send a DD signal through expect my PC. I've attempted changing drivers to no avail.

I see, so it's soft-locked rather than an impossibility. Do software manufacturers often increase their minimum hardware requirements with new updates?

I've read in a few different articles though that some programs won't run at all if certain clocks speeds aren't met. Are those articles wrong? ex: https://techterms.com/definition/systemrequirements

Now all that said, what is the point of minimum hardware requirements if CPU speed is not a factor in whether or not a program can run?

Essentially, is it wrong to say an i7 will give you the best experience for the longest amount of time compared to an i3, even if you're mostly a browser and they'll both run your programs?

Even if money wasn't an issue?

Okay, what, from a hardware stand point, would cause a program to be unable to run? And if you were to suggest a processor for someone who keeps their computers for very long amounts of times and don't like to upgrade unless they absolutely have to, would you recommend an i7 over, say, an i3?

Like the title says, would CPU speed ever be the reason a program would be unable to run? For example, would an i3 ever reach the point where it couldn't run a program whereas a same generation i7 would, albeit slowly?

I know, I just saw this video which is what reminded me of my question. Doesn't answer my question though.

I'm not really worried too much, just curious. With my recent build, after my CPU was installed correctly and carefully, I had some trouble putting the lid back over it. I tried pushing the latch down but it wasn't moving much, till I realized the latch wasn't completely under the large screw in front of the socket when I was pushing down. I never checked to see it the pins were damaged but I always wondered if it was even possible at that point of the installation. Board is an ASUS maximus ix hero btw.

Yeah I understand IPC, that's why I was wondering how the situation would pan out against two CPUs of the same architecture. Would a program ever keep itself from being able to run on a computer if it detected the CPU would not be fast enough to run some of its features properly, regardless of if they were used?

Oh sure and I make sure to ask what exactly they're using it for before I recommend one type of cpu or the other, but for the person who isn't multitasking too much, or running intensive software, I usually lean of faster/fewer cores. Especially where battery life is important.

So are you saying it could technically run any modern program that only utilized 2 threads?

Sure, but not necessarily programs the common person would use. I've generally been recommending higher clocked CPUs than multi-core ones for basic consumers.

From how I understand it, updates that add features increase the amount of instructions the CPU has to read, so it stands to reason that eventually a slower clocked CPU wouldn't be able to run a program after a number of updates whereas a faster CPU still could.

But how common is it that a program is able to add more parallelization than it already has?

This is probably a super stupid question, I just couldn't find anything online that said for certain. Would a CPU that is clocked decently higher than another CPU of the same generation and architecture last longer in terms of updates to programs and the operating system, regardless of RAM? I sell computers and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misleading customers by claiming that investing in a faster cpu would increase the lifespan of the computer in its ability to handle updates.

WELL ISN'T THAT DANDY FOR YOU

I've yet to fully deal with them, but I haven't found an ounce of good accounts about their customer support.

"support"

That's what I'm afraid of... I've heard so many nightmare stories about Asus customer service. It's almost like their treatment of customers is a scare tactic to make you keep their broken shit.

I just figured they'd direct me straight to Asus. Mind you it wasn't exhibiting this issue the whole time I'd had it, just fairly recently.

I'm contacting Asus since it's a little over a year since I bought the monitor. Should I be contacting Newegg even though it's well past their return policy? Also the second video didn't seem to work so here's the video of another person having the issue: