Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

infinitytec

Member
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About infinitytec

  • Title
    Newbie

System

  • CPU
    Ryzen 7 2700
  • Motherboard
    x470
  • RAM
    16GB
  • GPU
    RX 560

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for all the feedback people have shared on this! I have updated the OP to reflect the changed FAQ page UB now has up, and some of my thoughts about it.
  2. UserBenchmark.com has adjusted the algorithm for how the overall performance of a CPU is calculated. Previously, single-core performance made up 30% of the result, quad-core made up 60%, and the final 10% was reserved for "multicore" performance. This was calculated so that an Intel Core i7-7700K would equal approximately 100% score. The new scoring places the i9-9900K at the 100% mark, but also changes the makeup of the balancing of the scores. Single-core scoring now accounts for 40% of the result, and quad-core score takes a hit down to providing 57% of the score. Finally, the multicore score (specified to be 64 threads) only makes up 2% of the final score. UserBenchmark claims that this is to better reflect the importance of single-threaded performance in gaming. However, more workloads have been embracing more threads. The balance change makes the results for effective CPU speed seem off, namely when it comes to AMD CPUs and even Intel CPUs that have more threads, but may lag behind on single-threaded performance. For example, comparing the Ryzen 9 3900X to the Core i3-9350KF yields a mere margin of 3% in favor of the Ryzen 9. This is comparing a twelve-core 24-thread chip to a four-core chip. However, comparing the "Real World Speed" tells a different story. The lowest improvement the tests show the Ryzen 9 having is 2%, but the largest gain is a whopping 85%. And now some before-and-after with the Ryzen 5 3600: (before) (after) The Average Bench drops 15.6%. Granted, some of this drop could be because of the change of reference CPU. But the effective speed, average user bench, and peak overclock bench all take major hits. Intel has a similar decrease, though not to as much of a degree, on the i7-8700K: (before) (after) And about the i9-9900K being at 100%, I believe it fair to say that it has more than 9% effective speed than an i3-9350KF. The change in results has caused some uproar, especially among those who are fans of AMD, as this change seems to punish CPUs with higher core counts, which AMD is excelling at. UPDATE 7/26/2019: UserBenchmark has addressed concerns... by brushing them off at best. The UserBenchmark FAQ page on the effective CPU speed has been updated. (Archived version here) They specifically address the AMD community's displeasure with the change: So they noticed an issue and "fixed" it? This seems to say otherwise. But it doesn't stop there: Good job, UserBenchmark. You admitted what we have known for a long time: you are only good for estimations. But, more importantly, you are admitting your tests have flaws. Why should we not be upset when your recommendations are saying we can all go get i3s and compare them to Ryzen 9s? People are not going to be concerned with a slight test inconsistency. People are going to be concerned when tests are poorly balanced across all products. And one last bit on their "improved" FAQ page: Granted, something similar was on the last version. I think that the concerns the community has are reasonable. People who don't know better may waste money based on this site. And, to top it off, a nice video of how some people put too much fat on sheep before slaughtering them.
  3. Sorry, I can use the DDR3. It's the 800+GB of DDR2 I can't use.
  4. In terms of software, you may want to check out Proxmox as it will allow you to virtualise/have containers for whatever you do.
  5. I only needed the DDR3. BTW this is 1TB of RAM right here.
  6. In all honesty, I'm thinking more about the sellers and providers. It would be a pain to have to maintain that system.
  7. Kansas is considering a bill that will require Internet device distributors to provide filtering of porn. There would be a 'tax' to remove this software ($20) and you would have to be 18+ to remove it. While the intent seems good, it is too far-reaching. Also blocked would be any instructions on how to remove the filtering, presumably including other operating systems. Management of the software would fall on the distributors, with a fine for failure to comply. I have attached the complete bill for scrutiny. hb2319_00_0000.pdf
  8. The funny thing is that, after I fixed this problem, I was getting BSoDs when trying to play Blu-Ray Discs in VLC. However, I discovered it to be a problem with my new RX560 and hardware acceleration, so I manually set the HA to the supported option.
  9. I think I got it. It was the RAM. Both sticks and slots are working, however, thanks to the vague instructions in the manual (and me not thinking too much about it), I put the RAM in slots A1 and A2. I have the RAM now in A2 and B2, and things are going well.
×