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

Samsung 860 QVO 2TB or SanDisk Ultra 3D 2TB SSD?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Hi, i need some advice on this, im thinking about replacing my 2TB WD Black HDD with an SSD, though i don't know with which one, the options would be either the QVO 860 or the SanDisk Ultra 3D, both in a 2TB Capacity,
I probably would move a lot of files around and install a bunch of games, which could slow down over larger files as soon as the SLC and MLC "cache" gets filled up, maybe store pictures or record some videos onto it, so i thought maybe i shouldn't get the QLC based QVO, but the SanDisk is a pretty old drive at this point, that's probably why it uses TLC NAND. Which one would you recommend? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under no circumstance should you look at getting a qlc ssd for the situation you are in now. At 50% capacity, they drop speed to slower than a hdd. All my friends who went against my advice regret doing so. Stick with tlc for the time being until they fix the issues with qlc.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SanDisk Ultra 3D is the same drive as the WD Blue 3D (WD owns both brands) and it's a very respectable SATA SSD that I'd easily recommend (same goes for the Crucial MX500).

 

The Samsung 860 QVO is sketchy in a number of ways, from its regular performance to its performance as it's filled up to its write endurance. QLC memory, or at least the design currently being used by Samsung, does not seem to be ready. If QVO drives were being sold at a significant discount compared to the 3 drives I mentioned before then there might at least be some reason to consider them as storage drives. But in my market they are not (don't know what prices you have), and for the same or similar price there isn't any good reason to go with a markedly worse drive.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
14 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

Under no circumstance should you look at getting a qlc ssd for the situation you are in now. At 50% capacity, they drop speed to slower than a hdd. All my friends who went against my advice regret doing so. Stick with tlc for the time being until they fix the issues with qlc.

Thank you! Gonna go with the SanDisk then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
4 minutes ago, Kedohawyr said:

The SanDisk Ultra 3D is the same drive as the WD Blue 3D (WD owns both brands) and it's a very respectable SATA SSD that I'd easily recommend (same goes for the Crucial MX500).

 

The Samsung 860 QVO is sketchy in a number of ways, from its regular performance to its performance as it's filled up to its write endurance. QLC memory, or at least the design currently being used by Samsung, does not seem to be ready. If QVO drives were being sold at a significant discount compared to the 3 drives I mentioned before then there might at least be some reason to consider them as storage drives. But in my market they are not (don't know what prices you have), and for the same or similar price there isn't any good reason to go with a markedly worse drive.

 

 

Thank you! good to know, glad im asked before buying! they are pretty similar, the SanDisk only costs 20€ more, so i guess im gonna go with it, don't want the problems involved with Samsung's QLC if it's that bad- 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the QVO is that it costs just as much as the NVMe based Intel 660p and Crucial P1, and those are faster.


"What's under the heatsink?" ep1, "Why it's not as good as it seem?" AMD fanboy edition out, episode 2 "Why my gaming board is a scam?" Intel fanboy edition coming soon (this is a link)

Hardware specs below

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.4?V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
7 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Problem with the QVO is that it costs just as much as the NVMe based Intel 660p and Crucial P1, and those are faster.

I know, but the P1 and the 660p is also QLC, i have a Mortar MAX and already use a Kingston KC2000 1TB as my main drive in the first M.2 Slot. 
I, for some reason, don't want to use the second one, maybe i want to put in an Wifi/Bluetooth expansion card in it

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

maybe i want to put in an Wifi/Bluetooth expansion card in it

Oh for wireless connection you need M.2 A or E key, in other words you can't do that. Not sure if adapter can help you with that.


"What's under the heatsink?" ep1, "Why it's not as good as it seem?" AMD fanboy edition out, episode 2 "Why my gaming board is a scam?" Intel fanboy edition coming soon (this is a link)

Hardware specs below

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.4?V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
Just now, Jurrunio said:

Oh for wireless connection you need M.2 A or E key, in other words you can't do that. Not sure if adapter can help you with that.

Oh, alright! Probably i mixed up something- But would it be a good idea to use that second Slot, or any QLC Based M.2 SSD? (and i wrote the P1 was a SATA based drive, deleted it, the MX500 had a SATA based version.) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

Oh, alright! Probably i mixed up something- But would it be a good idea to use that second Slot, or any QLC Based M.2 SSD? (and i wrote the P1 was a SATA based drive, deleted it, the MX500 had a SATA based version.) 

QLC's fine when capacity is this large, more capacity means more cells to write over, and lifespan is increased.


"What's under the heatsink?" ep1, "Why it's not as good as it seem?" AMD fanboy edition out, episode 2 "Why my gaming board is a scam?" Intel fanboy edition coming soon (this is a link)

Hardware specs below

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.4?V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
10 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

QLC's fine when capacity is this large, more capacity means more cells to write over, and lifespan is increased.

So, for my case with 2TB (that will probably filled up to only around 100/200GB left empty) it would work out fine? Or would the SanDisk TLC based SSD be better? And what's with the Speeds when moving around large files?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

QLC's fine when capacity is this large, more capacity means more cells to write over, and lifespan is increased.

Except when you see that he intends to use it for games, and that most triple A games, even the free ones, are anywhere from 50gb-100gb. If he has 10 triple A games, he's hit the 50% mark where the extreme slowdown starts. My friend went with the intel 660p thinking that just because it's form factor looks the same, it'd act the same, the minute it hit 50% he texted me saying that he wished he hit it 2 days ago, when it was still able to be returned.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

So, for my case with 2TB (that will probably filled up to only around 100/200GB left empty) it would work out fine? Or would the SanDisk TLC based SSD be better? And what's with the Speeds when moving around large files?

Get a pro drive in this situation, at around 80% tlc experiences a similar slowdown, that of which is mostly remedied in the samsung pro. Or just store some games on the hdd that you're cool with waiting the extra few seconds to load.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

Except when you see that he intends to use it for games, and that most triple A games, even the free ones, are anywhere from 50gb-100gb. If he has 10 triple A games, he's hit the 50% mark where the extreme slowdown starts. My friend went with the intel 660p thinking that just because it's form factor looks the same, it'd act the same, the minute it hit 50% he texted me saying that he wished he hit it 2 days ago, when it was still able to be returned.

Ooof. I run a 1TB 970 Evo as a game drive so I haven't had any issues like that. The Sabrent Rocket is usually only a few $ more than the 660p, think it's any good? From what I've read it's basically a faster writing 660p without the drawbacks. I forget what kind of flash it uses though. I've been eyeing the 2TB ones for when I have the budget. 


I agree with the Yiga's view on bananas

 

Big Rig (Completed) i7 5960X - 4.7Ghz/3.7Ghz ~ 1.3v/1.1v core/uncore - 76-78C under RealBench load- Custom Loop: 2x 360GTS with EK-ZMT/Stubbies and EK D5 pump/res combo  - EVGA X99 Classified - 32GB (4x8GB) HyperX Predator DDR4 - 3200MHz CL16 - AMD Radeon VII (best TimeSpy so far: here) - 1TB 970 Evo - Corsair RM1000i - Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG - 6x iPPC NF-F12 2000 LG 25UM56-P - 25" 2560x1080 at 75Hz

 

X58 Madlads: X58 Xeon/i7 discussion     X99 bois: X99 Xeon/i7 discussion

 

GPUs I've had/have:
Radeon VII - 1660 Ti - 2x GTX 780s - 1050 Ti - 1050 - 660 - RX 570 - RX 480 - Vega FE - 2x GTX 1080s - 1080 Ti - 2 different 980 Tis
 

CPUs I've had/have:

5820K - 5960X - E5 4610v3 - X5670 - two X5675s - i7 950 - i7 920 - a few other X58 Xeons -  i5 2400 - 8700K - 8600K - 8400 - R5 1600 - R7 2700X - 2200G 

 

Both Intel and AMD are excellent platforms depending on use case, try to give advice off that and not personal preference for either OEM unless it's your own rig.

 

Always try googling your motherboard and looking at the spec sheet and manual - OEMs keep those up for a reason - and maybe you'll learn something 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

i think im gonna go with the SanDisk and just leave around 100-200GBs Free, that would work out the best i guess, even if i only have max speeds of around 550MB/s, it's probably better than slowing down to slower than HDD speeds when the Cache's empty at 50%- 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

i think im gonna go with the SanDisk and just leave around 100-200GBs Free, that would work out the best i guess, even if i only have max speeds of around 550MB/s, it's probably better than slowing down to slower than HDD speeds when the Cache's empty- 

I think there's a bit of miscommunication. Think of every cell having a door, and every layer is a fat dude trying to get out at the same time as the other ones. Since data on an ssd is written by spreading it around the whole drive, you might only have 1 bit written to every cell. Now you can probably see what I'm getting at here, eventually the rooms get filled and all 4 of the fat bits try to leave through the small door, causing a small slowdown. Now add it to millions of bits, and you get significant slowdown. This is different than a ram/slc cache, as an ssd can operate without one, those are just to give a blast of speed during the initial read/write of a file, and don't affect long term usage in most cases.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

hit the 50% mark where the extreme slowdown starts

that's what happens when you write all of that in at once and leave no time for the SSD to rearrange its cache.


"What's under the heatsink?" ep1, "Why it's not as good as it seem?" AMD fanboy edition out, episode 2 "Why my gaming board is a scam?" Intel fanboy edition coming soon (this is a link)

Hardware specs below

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.4?V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jurrunio said:

that's what happens when you write all of that in at once and leave no time for the SSD to rearrange its cache.

No and I speak from first hand experience, even small files are affected after a shutdown and start up days after the drive initially slows down.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
3 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

I think there's a bit of miscommunication. Think of every cell having a door, and every layer is a fat dude trying to get out at the same time as the other ones. Since data on an ssd is written by spreading it around the whole drive, you might only have 1 bit written to every cell. Now you can probably see what I'm getting at here, eventually the rooms get filled and all 4 of the fat bits try to leave through the small door, causing a small slowdown. Now add it to millions of bits, and you get significant slowdown. This is different than a ram/slc cache, as an ssd can operate without one, those are just to give a blast of speed during the initial read/write of a file, and don't affect long term usage in most cases.

but the think is, that TLC would still be faster than QLC, since there are less bits per cell. or less fat dudes trying to get through a door. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

that's what happens when you write all of that in at once and leave no time for the SSD to rearrange its cache.

but still, if i would for example copy an 80Gb File, i would probably drain that cache and really get a slow down during the accuring transfer, TLC wouldn't get that big of a hit as QLC in that scenario, that's what im getting out of this conversation- 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheManInTheSuite said:

but the think is, that TLC would still be faster than QLC, since there are less bits per cell. or less fat dudes trying to get through a door. 

And that’s what I’m trying to explain, tlc has these issues when it launched and they fixed them, give a year or so, and these problems should just quietly go away in new drive.


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, Jumballi said:

And that’s what I’m trying to explain, tlc has these issues when it launched and they fixed them, give a year or so, and these problems should just quietly go away in new drive.

so for now a TLC based drive would be better in any case, because it would be always faster/sustain fast(er) speeds?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

so for now a TLC based drive would be better in any case, because it would be always faster/sustain fast(er) speeds?

today yes, tomorrow maybe.

 


CPU: Intel core i7-8086K Case: CORSAIR Crystal 570X RGB CPU Cooler: Corsair Hydro Series H150i PRO RGB Storage: Samsung 960 EVO Series - 1TB PCIe NVMe - M.2 Internal PSU: EVGA 1000 GQ, 80+ GOLD 1000W, Semi Modular GPU: GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING X TRIO RAM: Corsair Dominator Platinum 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200mhz Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E Gaming

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jumballi said:

No and I speak from first hand experience, even small files are affected after a shutdown and start up days after the drive initially slows down.

My SU635 240GB (shit SSD btw, not fast at all even when empty in the first place) doesn't show significant speed dip with my 1-3GB files until I hit about 80% usage, of which it can compete with a 5400RPM HDD and will still lose.

 

4 minutes ago, TheManInTheSuite said:

but still, if i would for example copy an 80Gb File, i would probably drain that cache and really get a slow down during the accuring transfer, TLC wouldn't get that big of a hit as QLC in that scenario, that's what im getting out of this conversation- 

I didn't say you should buy the NVMe QLC drive, I just mention them to bash the 860 QVO. As a game storage most of its content can easily sit there for years, not good for less durable cells in the first place.


"What's under the heatsink?" ep1, "Why it's not as good as it seem?" AMD fanboy edition out, episode 2 "Why my gaming board is a scam?" Intel fanboy edition coming soon (this is a link)

Hardware specs below

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.4?V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: 1TB HP EX920 PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172), 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×