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

akio123008

Member
  • Content Count

    1,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

About akio123008

  • Title
    Veteran

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Gender
    Male

System

  • CPU
    Ryzen 5 1600
  • Motherboard
    some board that works with the cpu
  • RAM
    8 Gigs of DDR4 2666
  • GPU
    R7 260X
  • Case
    DIY CASE
  • Storage
    500 GB crucial SSD
  • PSU
    450 watt aerocool
  • Display(s)
    some benq monitor
  • Keyboard
    benq ps/2
  • Mouse
    benq ps/2
  • Operating System
    windows 10

Recent Profile Visitors

1,783 profile views
  1. Here's the 3D pen I use: On a serious note, this is a way more useful tool for DIY projects than any of the real 3D pens out there, so I'd give him this instead.
  2. Haha. I don't think they're actively working against it, but I do think there's no real reason for them to try to improve it either; it's extra R&D for no financial gain You'd have a separate port for CPU and GPU power on the PSU, as I don't see the extra convenience of having them be the same port. As for SATA and molex, what's the issue with having a molex or SATA port on a power supply? Just use the same port that's on a drive. (using a male side on the source source is seen as not-done due to exposed live pins, as in, an energised power plug, but in this
  3. This kind of stuff pops up every time. Why do all these PSU brands use such dumb connectors with absolute sh!it compatibility acrosss different brands and even across their own freaking lineup? So why not just use exactly the same type of connector that's on the hardware side? Just have 24 pin, PCIe power, CPU power, molex etc. connectors on the PSU itself too and make the cables completely symmetrical. I guess manufacturers might actually not want it to be that easy because the current method does allow you to sell more cables.
  4. Which you could sort of do on a windows box by just using remote desktop. Personally on my NAS I just use a server version of Linux and I use a remote terminal to configure it when I need to (although that's a pain, a windows PC with remote desktop is a lot nicer to use) But really a windows instance running is perfectly fine for sharing some files. I wouldn't buy a windows license for a file server, but if you already have the instance running I see no reason to make things more complicated and trying to move onto something else; if it aint broke don't fix it.
  5. Probably, but I have no idea how well it performs or how much it costs. No. What's the biggest distance you could cover? I'd say 15km with a real good line of sight? (and license free equipment)
  6. Say hypothetically I live in a field and need internet access. Due to the remote location conventional solutions won't work. I'll need to rig up some satellite based system, or perhaps a wireless point to point link. If you are able to provide some more info on such an internet solution, feel free to post it here! Of course this is totally for my personal use (in Holland).
  7. If they did, as in literally disconnected all lines, you'd be screwed. Your only remaining option would be to set up some custom wireless link to a location across the border, or use some satellite/starlink connection.
  8. That's fair. What started this discussion for me was someone mentioning the OP might have problems reading graphs, which I thought was a bit unfair given the slightly confusing nature of this graph. Basically what I'm saying is, I see how it works now, but I'm not surprised a first time user of the software would get it wrong.
  9. I could say once again I find this graph confusing but I think I'm starting to repeat myself haha.
  10. I think the 200W was just an example. In this case the 992W would have been hit at some earlier point in time, setting the max to 992.
  11. You're completely missing my point. The reason we set the graph to 1100 rather than 1008, is not to give multiples of 10 or whatever. The reason to use 1100 is to make clear it is not a measured value and distinguish it from the actual peak value. Using a round number like this makes it more obvious that we're looking at a scale number, not at a measured value (which I know wouldn't work if the peak happened to be exactly 1100W, but that's unlikely to happen) Because my main problem with this is how the axis label serves the double purpose of both displayi
  12. I understand, after you mentioned the 1008W is the peak value, and the graph also rescaled to that, it makes sense. Yes I get that. That's why I asked: But as a user opening this up for the first time, (or me seeing this for the first time on a forum post) not getting this graph isn't a surprise. Without the extra context you provided this graph is an absolute mess to read. For instance, it says "max 1008W" because that's the actual max, but then why does it also say "min 0W"? I'm pretty sure 0W isn't the actual measured minimum, unless it somehow me
  13. I mean, yes, but that also means this trace is not an inductor right?
  14. I don't think the OP is to blaim for misreading graphs here: The "max 1008W" is really confusing; the fact that it says "max" implies that it's the peak measured value, but its placement nex to the graph implies that it's the graph's max value. But no sensible graph would use such a weird number as its maximum, then it'd be something like 1000 or 1100. Also the word "max" is never used on the axis of a graph, normally it'd just say "1008" next to that line, and "0" at the bottom. (and there'd be a label like "power in watts" or whatever). Then, t
  15. 1) software voltage readings may never be trusted, they're almost always FAR off. 2) assuming these readings are correct (which again, they aren't) the values are perfectly fine and within spec.
×