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

TheLostViking

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About TheLostViking

  • Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. TheLostViking

    CAS latency vs PC speed

    Added to favorites bar. I feel like a huge idiot for not searching "RAM latency calculator" sooner.
  2. TheLostViking

    Why the GTX 1650 excites me

    I mean, I'm still hyped about the 1650 due to it delivering a notable performance increase over the 1050 ti with the same power draw and I'm dropping one in to a mini ITX build I'm constructing that won't have any wires beyond the mobo connector. While I liked the 1050ti and the future it promised, it didn't quite have the level of performance the 1650 has and its the power to performance that is finally being achieved that excites me on top of the future cards and nodes not yet built.
  3. TheLostViking

    Why the GTX 1650 excites me

    There will always be people who want those massive power draw cards. However, bringing increased graphical processing with a lower draw will benefit the high-end market by allowing for more efficient power distribution much in the same way that the development of small, fuel efficient cars has allowed for that technology to creep upwards in to the bigger, faster models to allow them to not measure their fuel consumption in single digits
  4. TheLostViking

    Why the GTX 1650 excites me

    Tl;DR: I am excited for the budget and efficiency builds of the future as well as improvements in power usage for all future GPUs given what I believe will come from this card. Going to address the elephant in the room right now; I know there are better bang for your buck cards, I know there are cards that will give me vastly superior performance for a nearly equivalent price point, and I am aware of all the arguments as to why I should not purchase a 1650. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me explain why this GPU excites me. Firstly, it outputs better performance than the GTX 660 ti at half the power draw. The 660 ti was part of my first "big boy" computer build back in 2012 and I use it as a measuring stick for all modern budget cards since I'm still able to get respectable performance out of that little beast all these years later. Secondly, given the non OC versions lack of PSU connection, it reduces cable clutter in builds that need as much space saving as possible (think Mini-ITX builds using only M.2 chips for hard drives with fully modular PSUs). This makes it a perfect card for people looking to add a bit of performance to prebuilt systems that use proprietary PSUs that they cannot replace. With only 75W of power draw you could drop this bad boy in to practically any system and start playing titles as demanding as Witcher 3 (granted at bare bones settings, but still). Given my love of aesthetics and clean looking builds, having things that lack cables is just peachy. Thirdly, cooling. Less electricity means less heat. Keeping a system running at optimal temperatures is key for PC longevity. The deployment and development of these technologies will aide in the fight against overheating and prolong PC lifespans. Given the lack of cables for the base model, it ever so slightly improves airflow as there are fewer obstacles for cool air to encounter while circulating within the system. Finally, I see the 1650 as the opposite evolutionary tree to the RTX and Titan series. While the 1650 might not be blowing people out the water now, given another 2-3 generations of cards with such low power draw we'll probably see far more attractive price points as the technology and development of these power efficient models increases. This kind of power efficiency will make its way in to higher end cards so that even the big boys are no longer requiring 1000+W systems to run anymore.
  5. Generally speaking, I've built all my computers to have the lowest CAS latency RAM. In the days of DDR3 1866-2400 this wasn't really that big of a deal, just grab some CAS 12 or lower and slap those bad boys in. However, now we've got DDR4 approaching the 5000 mark, but with CAS latency of 15 or greater. Am I just being a dinosaur when I'd rather drop in a DDR4 2400 with a CAS latency of 10 versus a DDR4 4800 with a CAS latency of 18 or is the greater PC speed able to make up for the difference in latency after a certain GB threshold/performance point? I only ask because my pride has taken a hit a few times on certain subreddits when my builds get criticized for not featuring higher speed RAM despite them having greater latency and I'm admittedly not as knowledgeable about the topic as I'd like to be.
×