CWellB

Depends.
 
Personally I wouldn't use it. The SSD is quite fast already and in most cases you won't notice the difference.
But if you have the additional space on your RAM available, then you could of course just leave it. Doesn't hurt anything.

Could be part of any software really. The software doesn't need to be supplied from the drive-manufacturer.
What did you install so far? Anything specific that's related to hardware?

Even better, which it'd better be with that price.

It's using your system's memory, since the SN550 doesn't have a DRAM cache of its own, hence the speeds faster than what the PCIe 3.0 (or even 4.0) x4 bus allows.

It's inexpensive, fast, not a bad purchase. There are slightly cheaper options:
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/product/dDVG3C/adata-swordfish-2-tb-m2-2280-nvme-solid-state-drive-aswordfish-2t-c
That you could consider but the 8200 isn't bad.

You probably meant the system memory.
The DRAM of the drive is likely not large enough for the 1GiB file size that CDM tests the speed with. I think HMB only allocates 128MB with most controllers. 
The PCI-e 3.0 x4 bus would also not be able to provide the necessary bandwith to achieve such speeds.
 
Edit:
These speeds are achieved with a RAM-cache. Sometimes also called RAM-disk or RAM-drive.
As mentioned Samsung calls their version of that "Rapid mode".
 
I assume you installed some sort of software that enabled that feature.

I am not sure what WD calls it, but basically the test ran on the DRAM of the drive, not the traditional storage NAND, which is much slower.
For example with Samsung drive, you can turn off this feature in their software and it's called RAPID mode, but again; not sure what WD calls it.

Both Samsung, LG, are all decent in my experience. Once you have a few models that look attractive, you can check what reviews like on Rtings have to say about them.
 
Realistically you're not going to find a non-smart TV anymore in this day and age. Nothing forces you to use the smart features though. You may just have to help them a bit setting things up and getting used to it.

Don't mix resolutions like that, it's super annoying in a bunch of small ways. Everything on the second monitor will be slightly enlarged
 
I've never bumped into problems mixing refresh rates but I know others have

nope
you can control gsync for monitors individually
same goes for refresh rate
 
not to my knowledge
some games may pop up at the 2nd screen (very rare if you set the main display right), but just have to set the display to the proper one in settings and it's all good
 
yes, i've never had issue with it
though i've seen people complain about doing so will make their game/video choppy, not sure what's wrong
 
you can use any connection you want, even pass-through from iGPU if you have one (though AMD iGPU has issues when dGPU is plugged in from all i've seen, intel has been flawless in my record for this regard)
 
mixing resolution works, but it can be annoying to use/navigate as windows will resize when you drag them across screens and your cursor might get stuck at corners of the larger resolution while trying to navigate from one screen to the next, not a great experience.
 
i've used dual monitor on my main desktop for 2 years now, half a year later i bought an extra for my bedside setup because i cant live without a 2nd monitor, it's just so good

No, multi-monitors and GSync works fine together from my experience with it.
 
That depends. Most games will default to running on the primary monitor, so if the PG279Q is not the primary monitor, you may have trouble getting some games to run on it as not all games allow you to choose. If you set it as primary though, you'll have no issues. You'll probably want to run games in Windowed boarderless as alt-tabbing out is much quicker than in true fullscreen. 
 
No need to use the same. I have 3 monitors connected via DP and 2 via HDMI, no issues. 
 
You do get used to it. The difference between 1080p and 1440p isn't too bad. I used to have a 4K monitor that I only ever ran at 1440p because the difference between 4K and 1080p with multiple monitors is genuinely terrible and Windows scaling is even worse. 1440p and 1080p together are fine if you ask me though. 

Ok thanks for this.
 
My understanding now is that I could populate both m2 slots with nvme and my gpu will be unaffected. My only loss is 2 SATA ports.
 
Thanks, I feel confident to go buy the drive.

It's X570 instead of B550, but this Gamer's Nexus chipset map might make things a little easier to understand. You can see that the pink line shows all of the different ways that motherboard manufacturers can choose to allocate the PCIe lanes coming from the chipset. Using them for different numbers of PCIe slots or some of them for SATA or a mix of each with different options for the end user.
 

Everything seems to be running better than before and I checked the clocks etc like you mentioned. Unfortunately I won't be hitting the fps dreams I had for wwz on amd, but since the intel chips aren't available near me lately I'll make the best of this. Thanks again for your help in making the best of the situation I had.

Correct. 
 
False. The GPU PCIe x16 slot does not share bandwidth at all. The lower x16 physical slot shares banndwidth with the 3 x1 slots. Not something you have to worry about.
 
This is false. The manual specifically states that the SATA ports are disabled when the slot is populated. So it it doesn't matter the type of drive.

When the m.2_2 slot is populated, the PCIe lanes from the chipset that where being used for SATA ports 5/6 are instead used for the PCIe or SATA mode M.2_2.

These refer to the PCIe x1 slots of which you have 3. Not the M.2 slots.
 
This will only matter to you if you have drives plugged into those SATA ports.

Good to hear that it's improved.
 
WWZ seems to be quite an odd case, as it seems to just be scaling upwards with clock speed:

 
If anything, update your motherboard's BIOS to the latest version (this is especially useful for B550 as it's still quite a recent platform), and set the power management for WWZ in the Nvidia Control Panel to "Prefer Maximum Performance".
I assume you've also put the two memory sticks in slots 2 and 4, and maybe just do a sanity check (I think it shows up in CPU-Z, HWiNFO64 or both), if you're running the memory at its XMP settings, so 3200MHz effective, make sure the UCLK and FCLK are running at 1600MHz.
 
Temps sound good as well. Glad to hear that it's running better now!

if you bought the highest end threadripper last gen, you would still feel obsolete now due to current gen threadripper having such improved IPC
 
you'll never not feel obsolete when new stuffs come out

Unless you play simulators, going past 8 cores wont really help with games. Otherwise old Xeons with a ton of cores will be great, but they arent. Single thread performance is what really mattrrs.

i expect most games to run fine on 8c/16t in the next 4 years, because if they dont, they would be cutting out quite a significant portion of the market
 
cant know for sure though
 
of course there will be games that are stupidly cpu demanding (glares at MHW:IB) that would probably be a minority

As I said. We really can't know. But it may be fine. I personally think it'll be more than fine but I could be wrong obviously. 

We don't know and we really can't know how demanding games can be in the future. But it may be fine. As I said we don't know though. 

I think it was determined I could get a b550 asus strix board now and be able to swap the 3600 out for a Zen3 cpu when they release. 

Ok thanks. I was using it with 3600 only because the list of supported CPU on asus website included the 3600 and even better cpus (like 3800x). The cost of impatience