Unpopular Tech Opinions

[skylinetofast]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

They may not need to go back to intel to fix that one.

intel owns usb c thunderbolt that's why no amd device has it. since intel owns it its probably why apple is having trouble getting more then 2 thunder bolt ports on there m1. 

[skylinetofast]

6 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Fine, but that is not really an average use case for these devices.

 

Sorry, but why the hell would you buy a Mac specifically to run Windows on it?

I like the way the macbook pros look. I spect my one out with an i9 32gb ram and 1tb ssd. I use it like a mac and windows workstation. some programs are not mac supported like autocad inventor. and the programs I use on mac are not windows supported like final cut pro and logic pro. so mac gives me both operating systems with grate performance

[pythonmegapixel]

1 minute ago, skylinetofast said:

intel owns usb c thunderbolt that's why no amd device has it. since intel owns it its probably why apple is having trouble getting more then 2 thunder bolt ports on there m1. 

The USB-IF have now standardised USB4 as a protocol based on and backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 3, so licensing from Intel is no longer a huge issue.

(If it was, Intel would surely have refused to license Thunderbolt for use with the M1!)

 

As for the USBC connector , that has never been proprietary to Intel as far as I'm aware.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Fine, but that is not really an average use case for these devices.

 

Sorry, but why the hell would you buy a Mac specifically to run Windows on it?

The whole average use case thing has always irritated me.  I’m above average height and weight, so I can’t shop for clothes at all at target.  Push that one hard enough and nothing but stuff for someone 5’10”, 150lb and size 9 shoes would be in the mens department. 
 

Bootcamp was very very useful.  It wasn’t about specifically running windows exclusively, it was generally about running 1 or 2 apps out of 8 or 10 that didn’t have Mac versions.  The other option was parallels which was slower. 

[skylinetofast]

1 minute ago, pythonmegapixel said:

The USB-IF have now standardised USB4 as a protocol based on and backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 3, so licensing from Intel is no longer a huge issue.

(If it was, Intel would surely have refused to license Thunderbolt for use with the M1!)

 

As for the USBC connector , that has never been proprietary to Intel as far as I'm aware.

Did not know that. Thanks for the knowledge 

[pythonmegapixel]

Just now, skylinetofast said:

I like the way the macbook pros look. I spect my one out with an i9 32gb ram and 1tb ssd. I use it like a mac and windows workstation. some programs are not mac supported like autocad inventor. and the programs I use on mac are not windows supported like final cut pro and logic pro. so mac gives me both operating systems with grate performance

Again, fair enough (most of these are rhetorical questions anyway).

 

However, you have to understand that Apple will never find that they can't make good enough devices with Apple Silicon, because for the vast majority of users, Apple Silicon is better than Intel. . To Apple, it doesn't matter if they lose a few of the 'power users' such as yourself, because overall they are still profiting from the switch.

 

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The whole average use case thing has always irritated me.  I’m above average height and weight, so I can’t shop for clothes at all at target.  Push that one hard enough and nothing but stuff for someone 5’10”, 150lb and size 9 shoes would be in the mens department.

Point taken (as someone who has much longer legs and larger feet than average, I feel the pain!)

 

However, I view using 2 external monitors and several other thunderbolt peripherals all at once to be the equivalent of being 7ft tall. Yes, some people are that height, but it is such a small demographic that clothing manufacturers simply cannot cater for it economically.

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

The USB-IF have now standardised USB4 as a protocol based on and backwards compatible with Thunderbolt 3, so licensing from Intel is no longer a huge issue.

(If it was, Intel would surely have refused to license Thunderbolt for use with the M1!)

 

As for the USBC connector , that has never been proprietary to Intel as far as I'm aware.

Thunderbolt 4 is thunderbolt3 with more demanding base specs. USB4 is thunderbolt3 with less demanding base specs.  Intel thinks the more cheapass specs of USB4 won’t run thunderbolt3. and are generally just a shitshow.  They’re probably right.  Doesn’t keep a company from having USB4 with thunderbolt4 specs though.

[skylinetofast]

3 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Again, fair enough (most of these are rhetorical questions anyway).

 

However, you have to understand that Apple will never find that they can't make good enough devices with Apple Silicon, because for the vast majority of users, Apple Silicon is better than Intel. . To Apple, it doesn't matter if they lose a few of the 'power users' such as yourself, because overall they are still profiting from the switch.

 

Point taken (as someone who has much longer legs and larger feet than average, I feel the pain!)

 

However, I view using 2 external monitors and several other thunderbolt peripherals all at once to be the equivalent of being 7ft tall. Yes, some people are that height, but it is such a small demographic that clothing manufacturers simply cannot cater for it economically.

Instead of buying a xdr display I am going to get m1 imac and use it as a display with the help of a usb c 4k 60hz capture card. I could use a new display.  

[Bombastinator]

12 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Again, fair enough (most of these are rhetorical questions anyway).

 

However, you have to understand that Apple will never find that they can't make good enough devices with Apple Silicon, because for the vast majority of users, Apple Silicon is better than Intel. . To Apple, it doesn't matter if they lose a few of the 'power users' such as yourself, because overall they are still profiting from the switch.

 

Point taken (as someone who has much longer legs and larger feet than average, I feel the pain!)

 

However, I view using 2 external monitors and several other thunderbolt peripherals all at once to be the equivalent of being 7ft tall. Yes, some people are that height, but it is such a small demographic that clothing manufacturers simply cannot cater for it economically.

At least you can still buy shirts there.  The only thing target works for me for is underwear and socks. Apple does have “big and tall” option problems. 

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, skylinetofast said:

I use all 4 of my thunderbolt ports on my intel macbook pro. I use 2 4k displays 60hz, thunderbolt dock and thunderbolt sound card. can't do the same on a m1 device

I have to ask why exactly you need 4 Thunderbolt ports for this?

 

Why are you not running the 4K displays off of the dock instead?

3 hours ago, skylinetofast said:

intel owns usb c thunderbolt that's why no amd device has it. since intel owns it its probably why apple is having trouble getting more then 2 thunder bolt ports on there m1. 

Just gonna put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)

 

Intel probably couldn't stop Apple from using Thunderbolt even if they wanted to, since Apple is co-creator of the interface. The license agreement probably guarantees Apple access to the interface regardless of what hardware they choose to use (assuming they can get it working).

 

Also Wendell from Level1techs modified the firmware on a Thunderbolt add-in card and got it working on an AMD Threadripper machine, so the only reason AMD isn't Thunderbolt compatible at this point is probably Intel just being dicks about it (meaning it's an artificial software limitation, not a hardware limitation).

[Kilrah]

Asrock has several AMD mobos with TB3. It's uncommon, but not impossible.

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I have to ask why exactly you need 4 Thunderbolt ports for this?

 

Why are you not running the 4K displays off of the dock instead?

Just gonna put this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)

 

Intel probably couldn't stop Apple from using Thunderbolt even if they wanted to, since Apple is co-creator of the interface. The license agreement probably guarantees Apple access to the interface regardless of what hardware they choose to use (assuming they can get it working).

 

Also Wendell from Level1techs modified the firmware on a Thunderbolt add-in card and got it working on an AMD Threadripper machine, so the only reason AMD isn't Thunderbolt compatible at this point is probably Intel just being dicks about it (meaning it's an artificial software limitation, not a hardware limitation).

?? Thunderbolt on AMD isn’t impossible it’s just expensive.  You could get thunderbolt on x570 boards when they came out.  Lots of b550 boards have it.  Not the cheap models though, which is also true of intel.  Tb3 is expensive to implement.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

?? Thunderbolt on AMD isn’t impossible it’s just expensive.  You could get thunderbolt on x570 boards when they came out.  Lots of b550 boards have it.  Not the cheap models though, which is also true of intel.  Tb3 is expensive to implement.

I was unaware of any specific AMD products that come preloaded with Thunderbolt 3 - that's good to know though (and simply further proves the point that having only 2 TB3 ports on the M1 is not a fundamental limitation of all future ARM Apple SoC's).

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

?? Thunderbolt on AMD isn’t impossible it’s just expensive.  You could get thunderbolt on x570 boards when they came out.  Lots of b550 boards have it.  Not the cheap models though, which is also true of intel.  Tb3 is expensive to implement.

I think it's less than you might think. My B550I has a USB-C on the rear I/O. That's all it is though. Same with my 6800 XT.

[mwagen]

I remember back when the Zune came out and I wanted to get one, and being a little sad when they were discontinued. The smart phone killed those portable music players but I miss them.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, mwagen said:

I remember back when the Zune came out and I wanted to get one, and being a little sad when they were discontinued. The smart phone killed those portable music players but I miss them.

There were people who were still using iPods as cellphones that only worked in areas of free wifi at least up to recently.  Might still be doing it.  Cheap tiny phone and no cell plan.

[Jay427]

1 - The Motherboard is much more important than most think it is.  If your hardware doesn't communicate efficiently with one another, then you wasted money and performance due to a false assumption.

 

2 - Going well over the wattage needed for a PSU is a smart move financially.  You'll spend more money now, but save much more in energy costs over time by reducing energy consumption, while also maintaining your ability to upgrade your hardware in the future without needing to upgrade your power supply.

 

3 - Flip phones were better.  There's literally a computer everywhere anyway, the only added convenience smartphones have is GPS.

[Bombastinator]

Huh.  There really are two of these for no good reason.  One is “unpopular tech opinions” and the other has a similar title but has a disclaimer in parentheses.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, Jay427 said:

1 - The Motherboard is much more important than most think it is.  If your hardware doesn't communicate efficiently with one another, then you wasted money and performance due to a false assumption.

 

2 - Going well over the wattage needed for a PSU is a smart move financially.  You'll spend more money now, but save much more in energy costs over time by reducing energy consumption, while also maintaining your ability to upgrade your hardware in the future without needing to upgrade your power supply.

 

3 - Flip phones were better.  There's literally a computer everywhere anyway, the only added convenience smartphones have is GPS.

1. What kind of performance? There are several metrics

 

2. I think you have the energy use thing backwards.  Or one of us does.

 

3. flip phones had their points.  Some people still use em and refuse to go near smartphones.   Interestingly those people tend to be very rich.   Probably cause rather than effect. 

[Jay427]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

3. flip phones had their points.  Some people still use em and refuse to go near smartphones.   Interestingly those people tend to be very rich.   Probably cause rather than effect. 

It's the things that tend to go unnoticed related to phones, especially when perceptions are relative to our exposure.  Smartphones double as entertainment systems, like a gameboy, and are habitually used as a distraction rather than a tool.  In terms of developmental psychology, we condition ourselves to be distracted by the other potential uses of an item depending on our history of use.  This is what my psychology professors had taught me, and I would run into this issue constantly when tutoring for science and math classes in college when other students were dependent on their phones rather than their own judgement and memory.

 

As for power supplies, they don't only draw power, they draw power as needed and convert power from AC to DC, which is then consumed by the rest of your hardware components.  There's a curve for efficiency of conversion (from what I understand) around 50%, meaning that a 1000 Watt PSU will be much more efficient drawing and converting power than a 500 Watt PSU for a 500 Watt system.  bump the rating from Bronze to Titanium, that's about another 10% efficiency.  $20.00 a month for 5 years: $1,200.00 is $120.00 saved on rating alone - but power consumption fluctuates too, which increases efficiency of the latter by comparison.  Need to upgrade your system with a new generation GPU?  Last one might not cut it, that's more money lost.  Made with lower quality components means faster depreciation, the latter will likely be used for much longer, if it lasts for the life of two bronze PSU's, then you've already spent only half of the money by comparison, and avoided inflation on your next purchase.

[Spindel]

58 minutes ago, Jay427 said:

It's the things that tend to go unnoticed related to phones, especially when perceptions are relative to our exposure.  Smartphones double as entertainment systems, like a gameboy, and are habitually used as a distraction rather than a tool.  In terms of developmental psychology, we condition ourselves to be distracted by the other potential uses of an item depending on our history of use.  This is what my psychology professors had taught me, and I would run into this issue constantly when tutoring for science and math classes in college when other students were dependent on their phones rather than their own judgement and memory.

 

As for power supplies, they don't only draw power, they draw power as needed and convert power from AC to DC, which is then consumed by the rest of your hardware components.  There's a curve for efficiency of conversion (from what I understand) around 50%, meaning that a 1000 Watt PSU will be much more efficient drawing and converting power than a 500 Watt PSU for a 500 Watt system.  bump the rating from Bronze to Titanium, that's about another 10% efficiency.  $20.00 a month for 5 years: $1,200.00 is $120.00 saved on rating alone - but power consumption fluctuates too, which increases efficiency of the latter by comparison.  Need to upgrade your system with a new generation GPU?  Last one might not cut it, that's more money lost.  Made with lower quality components means faster depreciation, the latter will likely be used for much longer, if it lasts for the life of two bronze PSU's, then you've already spent only half of the money by comparison, and avoided inflation on your next purchase.

PSUs generally are more efficient the closer they are to the rated power. The further away you are from the rated power the lower the efficiency.

 

Basically you have losses that are independent of the current power draw, they are always the same. If you have a high power rating on a PSU lets say 1000 W and only draw 100 W from it you still have all the components for being able to deliver 1000 W and they are always powered on and always have the same power need regardless of power draw. So if your power draw is 100 W it would be better, from an efficiency standpoint, to get a 150 W or 200 W PSU simply because the amount of powered components are fewer (smaller) and thus you get better total efficiency even if the conversion efficiency is a bit lower.

 

 

[sengin]

47 minutes ago, Spindel said:

PSUs generally are more efficient the closer they are to the rated power. The further away you are from the rated power the lower the efficiency.

 

Basically you have losses that are independent of the current power draw, they are always the same. If you have a high power rating on a PSU lets say 1000 W and only draw 100 W from it you still have all the components for being able to deliver 1000 W and they are always powered on and always have the same power need regardless of power draw. So if your power draw is 100 W it would be better, from an efficiency standpoint, to get a 150 W or 200 W PSU simply because the amount of powered components are fewer (smaller) and thus you get better total efficiency even if the conversion efficiency is a bit lower.

 

 

The difference in efficiency is tiny and immaterial. Power supplies may be the most efficient at 50% of rated power but even at 80% the difference in efficiency is less than 3%. Just google "evga efficiency curve" and click on images and you will see this is true.

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, Jay427 said:

It's the things that tend to go unnoticed related to phones, especially when perceptions are relative to our exposure.  Smartphones double as entertainment systems, like a gameboy, and are habitually used as a distraction rather than a tool.  In terms of developmental psychology, we condition ourselves to be distracted by the other potential uses of an item depending on our history of use.  This is what my psychology professors had taught me, and I would run into this issue constantly when tutoring for science and math classes in college when other students were dependent on their phones rather than their own judgement and memory.

 

As for power supplies, they don't only draw power, they draw power as needed and convert power from AC to DC, which is then consumed by the rest of your hardware components.  There's a curve for efficiency of conversion (from what I understand) around 50%, meaning that a 1000 Watt PSU will be much more efficient drawing and converting power than a 500 Watt PSU for a 500 Watt system.  bump the rating from Bronze to Titanium, that's about another 10% efficiency.  $20.00 a month for 5 years: $1,200.00 is $120.00 saved on rating alone - but power consumption fluctuates too, which increases efficiency of the latter by comparison.  Need to upgrade your system with a new generation GPU?  Last one might not cut it, that's more money lost.  Made with lower quality components means faster depreciation, the latter will likely be used for much longer, if it lasts for the life of two bronze PSU's, then you've already spent only half of the money by comparison, and avoided inflation on your next purchase.

Just so we're clear, every PSU has a different efficiency curve, but on just about all of them, the difference is really not that much between peak efficiency.

 

Example:

(Taken from the SF series manual)

 

Peak efficiency is around 52% load or so, at ~94% efficient (assuming European 230VAC)

 

Take that all the way to 100% load, and that efficiency drops a whopping 3% (to slightly above 91%).

 

Even if we look at NA 115 VAC, we're still looking at a peak of ~93% and a drop at 100% load to ~90%.

 

So again, we're looking at a 3% difference. Will a 3% difference add up in the long run? Yes, slightly.

 

Let's compare that to a 450W PSU from the same brand:

 

Peak efficiency here is actually closer to 75% load, at around 92% efficiency, with a drop to 91% efficiency at 100% load.

 

Literally you are not saving any power by buying the larger PSU in this comparison.

[GDRRiley]

9 hours ago, sengin said:

The difference in efficiency is tiny and immaterial. Power supplies may be the most efficient at 50% of rated power but even at 80% the difference in efficiency is less than 3%. Just google "evga efficiency curve" and click on images and you will see this is true.

it isn't and especially over say 50 computers you will notice
below 20% usage most PSUs fall off in efficiency

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

it isn't and especially over say 50 computers you will notice
below 20% usage most PSUs fall off in efficiency

Low load definitely is less efficient. Please see the two efficiency curves I posted above.

 

But that only furthers the point that there is absolutely no need to massively overspec your PSU. Ideally you want to spec it out with a nice cushion (say 20% or 25% extra capacity over max load). That allows some upgrades and also doesn't waste money on unnecessarily powerful PSU's.

 

Yes if you're running a massive company with hundreds or thousands of workstations, then those little fractions of a percent in efficiency can make a massive difference. But most in that scenario are running fairly low power OEM machines anyway.