Intel X6 i5-9600KF based system (5.00Ghz project)

[Fast_N_Curious]

52 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

I get your reasoning behind buying this cpu, for your use case it just might be exactly what you need, sadly the price of it is not that great.

What do you mean? Price is not that great? The 9600K is a killer deal at $200 and has the best cost / performance ratio out of any high end Intel chip on the market right now. 

 

 

[nox_]

20 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

What do you mean? Price is not that great? The 9600K is a killer deal at $200 and has the best cost / performance ratio out of any high end Intel chip on the market right now. 

 

 

When you consider only the cpu itself, yes. But motherboards that make use of the k in 9600K are expensive, your motherboard costs 290 euros in my neck of the woods. 5 3600 which according to userbenchmark is only 7% worse would cost much less with motherboard included, you are gonna tell me now that 3600 can't be overclocked to the same level I guess? My answer to that is : average consumer rarely does overclock.

Edited March 6, 2020 by noxdeouroboros

[Fast_N_Curious]

15 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

When you consider only the cpu itself, yes. But motherboards that make use of the k in 9600K are expensive, your motherboard costs 290 euros in my neck of the woods. 5 3600 which according to userbenchmark is only 7% worse would cost much less with motherboard included, you are gonna tell me now that 3600 can't be overclocked to the same level I guess? My answer to that is : average consumer rarely does overclock.

 

When AMD gets their act together with a suitable IMC I will consider building an AMD based machine. Until that point, the latency #s are simply too far out of bounds, and are simply unacceptable for my personal preferences and standards. Not to mention Ryzen is a piss poor overclocker and is likely faster in stock form than with a manual overclock. AMD did a disservice to the overclocking community by not building in more headroom for OC potential.  They lost my vote, that's for sure. I want you to take a look at this benchmark competition I'm hosting over at techpowerup.com. This is an ongoing comp so it's representative of current tech.  Notice how team blue is at the top and team red is at the bottom? With a clear dividing line in the center? This is because AMD frankensteined the FX bulldozer IMC design into their Ryzen lineup, added DDR4 and made a few minor tweaks to the otherwise very old and very flawed design. My point is, WHT is AMD doing using an IMC that's been a downright lousy performer and lousy overclocker since day one? But wait, it gets worse. Look closely at the results... You will see the top two AMD contenders are NOT Ryzen based systems. That's right. AMD Ryzen gets its ass handed to him by two platforms that are decades old. I mean really? AMD's Athlon 6400+ mops the floor with Ryzen?! AMD should be ashamed of themselves for this egregious regression in memory sub system performance. Oh, and good luck running high clocking DDR4 on Ryzen. I'm sure that's fun to try to get working - best just play it safe with low spec DDR4... Not worth the hassle of fighting it. All that being said: the Ryzen would be a great chip if it were not for these outrageous oversights. No, when AMD comes around, I will come around. 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

On 3/4/2020 at 7:46 PM, GDRRiley said:

bf4,bf1, bfV, are all ones I play but the list has almost any game released in the last few years but Far cry and a few exceptions. both videos I linked outlines some of them.

 

Seeing as how you were wrong with BF4, you do realize I am going to take you to account for these remaining suppositions, right? Downloading the other games right now...

So if you are speaking without knowing the facts I will give you a chance right now to take a mulligan and take back what you said about these games overwhelming a 9600KF. 

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Seeing as how you were wrong with BF4, you do realize I am going to take you to account for these remaining suppositions, right? Downloading the other games right now...

So if you are speaking without knowing the facts I will give you a chance right now to take a mulligan and take back what you said about these games overwhelming a 9600KF. 

I'm not wrong. it was never the average it was the .1% and 1% lows that made the 4/4 and 6/6 cores struggle at times.

you go run a hour test in multiplayer and benchmark the low end.

2 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

The scoring is not wrong... The i3 has better PER CORE performance.. and since most desktop users are not engaging more than two or three threads at a time the i3 has the effective performance edge on TR because those users will never face a work flow that has the ability to tap into those extra cores. for the mainstream computing market.... the market that userbenchmark.com is catering to, userbenchmark has it right. Plus, I highly doubt the average consumer CPU choice is going to come down to a Threadripper 1950X verses an Intel quad core i3. And if you hit the compare button, userbenchmark will run the numbers for you. And userbenchmark has the facts straight according to thousands and thousands of submissions. Core monsters: You know who you are. 

 

I don't know what you define as desktop? word? excel? chrome?

office tasks are still plenty snappy on a 2nd gen i3 with 8 or 16gb of ram an SSD.

 

I hit 99% on a 6600k for years and I still do on a 2700. had I had the money i would have gotten a 3900 and a better board.

user benchmark  is so wrong it isn't funny. If i wasn't on bad wifi I'd grab the hardware unbox vidoe on everything that is wrong with it.

 

the individual scores are "right" but how they combine them to make the overall isn't

[Kilrah]

29 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

When AMD gets their act together with a suitable IMC I will consider building an AMD based machine. Until that point, the latency #s are simply too far out of bounds, and are simply unacceptable for my personal preferences and standards. Not to mention Ryzen is a piss poor overclocker and is likely faster in stock form than with a manual overclock.

Eh, these are all numbers, who gives a... To most they mean nothing, only the actual performance they get in their application does. People won't care a single bit that memory latency is higher on X than on Y if in the end X performs better overall.

Most people overclock to get more performance in their apps, not just for the numbers. If a system gives better performance out of the box then the better it is as it removes the hassle.

 

Guess we now know that we all misunderstood, we thought you wanted a powerful and well balanced system, when it was purely an overclocker build and what you actually care about is numbers on a sheet, so all rationale is out of the window. Could have mentioned that upfront.

[NubCak]

11 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

LOL Vastly outdated? It's actually one of Intel's latest releases. I guess you are calling that obsolete? How do you expect me to take you seriously with a comment like that? Core count is far from the only thing to consider in terms of processor performance. I'm afraid you've bought into the core count hype that has permeated the tech community over the past few years. 

Think about it this way, if 10th gen is already dead in the water, what makes you think that 9th gen is not?  
And yes, core count is not the only important thing, but one of the most important factors, the main factor being IPC. Statistically, its already proven that Ryzen 3000 series have better IPC. It's only clockspeed that Intel has an advantage in. Which is why I said, if you are aiming to get every last FPS in games, then sure go intel, but even if you are going Intel, there are definitely much better options than 6 cores / 6 threads today. If your goal was to get every last FPS in games, then your biggest problem is your video card. As you've stated it only does 80-90fps in BF, considering most gaming monitors are atleast 100hz now, you're not even making full use of a capable gaming monitor.

In addition, here is what most people have been trying to say to you, games nowadays are already using up 6 threads and some games like ashes of singularity are using even more. Adding to your problem is that, if the games are using 6 threads, what about all your background tasks? Like steam, windows, etc. It means that your processor is taking time off from processing the game and processing background tasks.


6 cores at 5.0GHz is most definitely "cutting the mustard" - At least for my purposes. The CPU demolishes everything I throw at it. It's not like I'm going out and desperately buying games every week in hopes that I can "play them furiously" on my new system. It was a calculated buy, not geared towards maximum number crunching performance, but with a focus on single threaded workloads instead.

 

Not all titles are using at least six cores, matter of fact the majority of games out there wont use more than 4 cores. The 9600KF can play virtually any game on the market, and play it well. 

 

Are you under the impression that when you load a game that can take advantage of six cores the system somehow grinds to a halt? That's not how it works. 

Not once did i say you were buying games every week in hopes that you can play them furiously, and it was definitely a poorly calculated buy, you're building a computer for TODAY, with no eye for seeing whats coming in the future. Next gen consoles are all running 8 cores and 16 threads. Where do most PC games come from? Console ports. How will your i5 deal with new titles that were natively written to use 8 cores and 16 threads? BTW any game using the below engines will be able to use atleast 8 cores out of the box: Unreal Engine 4, Frostbite 3, CryEngine 3, Civilization game engine, Nitrous Engine.

 

By the way, the 9600KF has almost identical performance to a 9900K up to six cores. So you are getting the gaming performance without compromise.

You are compromising, the 9900k, still has extra threads/cores to allocate to background tasks. 

 

Already aged and on hits way out? It's literally like Intel's most recent processor release to market. I guess it's going to be hard to argue if you've made up your mind that a 9th gen Intel core CPU is obsolete.  

Refer to the above.

 

I decided to go Intel for this build for a number of reasons. Primarily the overclockability. There are currently no AMD CPUs on the market that will run a 5.0GHz overclock right out of the gate unless you start getting into exotic cooling methods. And yes, I already have an FX system that runs at 5.0GHz. Ryzen also has pitiful memory latency and far less support for highly clocked DDR4 RAM (Im running 4000MHz right now with another 4266MHz kit on the way). For me, this wasn't an "economical" build, this is something I've had planned for quite some time, and I will have you know, I chose the 9600KF over the 9900K because that's the CPU I wanted. I didn't want or need 8 cores. Nor the expensive $520 price tag that goes with it. I chose all the parts of this build for specific reasons, I'm not just trying to cover for this so called "bad purchase" by defending it. Matter of fact, I think it's most likely the people that bought a 9900K are the ones that made a mistake, because the cost / performance ratio of the 9600KF cannot be beat by another other high end Intel chip on the market. 

 

Perhaps this will reset your expectations:

Why are you set on clock speed? IPC>Clockspeed. Ryzen does not have pitiful memory latency, all that you've read is based on 2nd gen and most likely 1st gen ryzen. I have 4x 16gb sticks of gskill tridentz running at 4000mhz without a hitch, literally plug in and enter speed in bios. 

Sorry dude, that is definitely a budget build. There are lots of people whom would agree with me that an i5, 16gb ram and an RX580 is a budget build.
Not everyone looks at cost/performance, some people just want peak performance or to be set for the next few years without having to make changes in the motherboard etc. 

Another short sighted aspect of your purchase is that knowing you pretty much have a dead in the water upgrade path, you can go to the i7s/i9s but those don't even compare to Ryzen 3000 and the upcoming Ryzen 4000 which will still be on socket AM4.

 

 

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

6 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Guess we now know that we all misunderstood, we thought you wanted a powerful and well balanced system, when it was purely an overclocker build and what you actually care about is numbers on a sheet, so all rationale is out of the window. Could have mentioned that upfront.

not even a good number ether. wow you got a 9600K to 5.0 ghz. that is what 9th gen is known for.

@NubCak

it isn't really budget, it just looks to be because of how he spent money. he dropped 300$ on a board for a 200$ CPU.

[NubCak]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

not even a good number ether. wow you got a 9600K to 5.0 ghz. that is what 9th gen is known for.

@NubCak

it isn't really budget, it just looks to be because of how he spent money. he dropped 300$ on a board for a 200$ CPU.

Its pretty budget if you ask me, but everyone's priorities and budgets are different. 

He says he goes for cost/performance, a $300 board doesn't perform any better than the $200 board that's available, talk about contradiction.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, NubCak said:

Its pretty budget if you ask me, but everyone's priorities and budgets are different. 

He says he goes for cost/performance, a $300 board doesn't perform any better than the $200 board that's available, talk about contradiction.

they had the budget for an i7 and a cheaper board. or a 3600x or 3700X and a much better GPU.

they went for 5.0ghz and forgot about everything else

[Zando_]

21 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Eh, these are all numbers, who gives a... To most they mean nothing, only the actual performance they get in their application does. People won't care a single bit that memory latency is higher on X than on Y if in the end X performs better overall.

Most people overclock to get more performance in their apps, not just for the numbers. If a system gives better performance out of the box then the better it is as it removes the hassle.

 

Guess we now know that we all misunderstood, we thought you wanted a powerful and well balanced system, when it was purely an overclocker build and what you actually care about is numbers on a sheet, so all rationale is out of the window. Could have mentioned that upfront.

Surprisingly, some people enjoy OCing their rigs. It's not about numbers on a sheet, though those are nice. It's about headroom and there being a noticeable improvement based on the bin you have and your knack for squeezing the best performance out of it. I moved from a 2700X back to an X5675 from 2011 because that was more fun to push. Watching a 2700X hit 4.2 all core and be slower in games than with PBO on is depressing if you like tweaking your rigs. Whereas I can take an X58 Xeon from 3-3.4Ghz up to 4.5-4.7, slap up the uncore, tune the RAM and there's a noticeable improvement in everything down to how snappy the Windows menu is. 

6 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

they had the budget for an i7 and a cheaper board. or a 3600x or 3700X and a much better GPU.

they went for 5.0ghz and forgot about everything else

OP explained very well that they did not need more than 6 cores, so an i7 would be dumb. OP made it very clear they weren't going for an economical build as well, legit stated that in the first post lol. 

8 minutes ago, NubCak said:

Its pretty budget if you ask me, but everyone's priorities and budgets are different. 

He says he goes for cost/performance, a $300 board doesn't perform any better than the $200 board that's available, talk about contradiction.

In the first post OP says they went for a matching themed rig, not a perf/$ one. Even though some parts are good perf/$, such as the 9600KF being about the best CPU available for their needs/wants. 


Y'all need to learn to just... complement someone's build. It's finished, OP bought all the stuff and built it, suggestions are useless. Talk with them about what all they do with it, how it performs, find something cool to blab about. Are you hardware enthusiasts or internet assholes who want to stomp on everyone's rigs if they don't fit your preferences? I'll ree at Ryzen all day because it doesn't suit my preferences, but if it's someone else's rig and they're happy with it, hell yeah
 

[Fast_N_Curious]

5 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Eh, these are all numbers, who gives a... To most they mean nothing, only the actual performance they get in their application does. People won't care a single bit that memory latency is higher on X than on Y if in the end X performs better overall.

Most people overclock to get more performance in their apps, not just for the numbers. If a system gives better performance out of the box then the better it is as it removes the hassle.

I'm simply giving you my take on the situation from a frustrated overclocker's perspective, just my opinion and again, I want you all to know I stuck it out with AMD for a long time before going Intel...

 

That's the problem. AMD has turned into the economy option (and have actually made it work quite well for themselves -- its not a bad thing), not saying they are bad products and poor performers, and you probably couldn't tell the difference, but in going down this road they have stepped away from the overclocking community and have almost made overclocking a thing of the past. This "hassle" as you call it is a passion for others. So I can se we wont see eye to eye on this, however, I do want to point out that my system is in fact used for much more than benchmarking. I work remotely from this computer.

Quote

 Could have mentioned that upfront.

I did mention it up front. I stated very clearly my overclock goal was 5.0GHz . I also made it known made it known that some of the parts were chosen due to aesthetics.  The build as far as I am concerned is complete, stable and FAST. I meet all my goals. 

 

You honestly think the only thing I use this computer for is running a two minute benchmark? What do you think I am I doing for the remaining 11 hours and 58 minutes of every day? Wood carving? LOL 

 

In all honestly though, I see where you are coming from. I am perhaps a bit more specific in my hardware choices than most would be.  

[Kilrah]

7 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Surprisingly, some people enjoy OCing their rigs.

Oh I know, it was just a misunderstanding that this was THE priority for them. 

 

6 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

You honestly think the only thing I use this computer for is running a two minute benchmark?

Certainly not - but it's that 2-minute benchmark that entirely dictates your choice of hardware, not the rest. If that wasn't a goal you'd likely choose something completely different.

[NubCak]

1 minute ago, Storm-Chaser said:

I'm simply giving you my take on the situation from a frustrated overclocker's perspective, just my opinion and again, I want you all to know I stuck it out with AMD for a long time before going Intel...

 

That's the problem. AMD has turned into the economy option (and have actually made it work quite well for themselves -- its not a bad thing), not saying they are bad products and poor performers, and you probably couldn't tell the difference, but in going down this road they have stepped away from the overclocking community and have almost made overclocking a thing of the past. This "hassle" as you call it is a passion for others. So I can se we wont see eye to eye on this, however, I do want to point out that my system is in fact used for much more than benchmarking. I work remotely from this computer.

You honestly think the only thing I use this computer for is running a two minute benchmark? What do you think I am I doing for the remaining 11 hours and 58 minutes of every day? Wood carving? LOL 

 

In all honestly though, I see where you are coming from. I am perhaps a bit more specific in my hardware choices than most would be.  

I find it interesting that you shun AMD for removing headroom in overclocking when has and is doing the same thing, look at the new i9-10900 or whatever its called, its clocked at 5.2ghz out of the box, just like what overclockers were able to push on 9th gen, nothing about that chip is different than the 9th gen aside from minor changes. When the 10900 or whatever gets into overclocker's hands it will be the same deal, is already tapped out. 

AMD is not really the economy option, the top end AMD processors have a correct price, it's intel who's stuck in the past and refusing to compete in the same spaces, just look at how Intel refuses to release processors with the same core counts as AMD especially in the high end, they are the ones dodging in this fight, 10 cores, 14 cores and 18 cores, notice the obvious lack of 12 cores, 16 cores? 

You're lying to yourself if you believe your overclock to 5ghz is/was a challenge. 

[Damascus]

Guys, calm down lol.  OP isn't asking for advice or help.  This is a build log, not a parts request or double check.  Your advice is unwarranted and unwanted 

[Zando_]

5 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Oh I know, it was just a misunderstanding that this was THE priority for them. 

I mean they did clearly state it: 

"I want to focus on single-thread OR per core performance vs brute force and pure number crunching power. This lead me to the Intel Core i5-9600KF, a 9th gen unlocked 6 core CPU that boosts to 4.6Ghz. The price/performance ratio of this CPU is excellent (almost supreme, in fact), as they go for only $200 shipped. Seeing as how single-thread performance (and even up to four cores) is nearly on par with the 9900k or the 8086k, I realized I likely won't notice any difference in day to day usage (short of synthetic benchmarking). My target goal is 5.0Ghz all cores with the 9600KF. "

4 minutes ago, NubCak said:

I find it interesting that you shun AMD for removing headroom in overclocking when has and is doing the same thing, look at the new i9-10900 or whatever its called, its clocked at 5.2ghz out of the box, just like what overclockers were able to push on 9th gen, nothing about that chip is different than the 9th gen aside from minor changes. When the 10900 or whatever gets into overclocker's hands it will be the same deal, is already tapped out. 

That chip isn't out yet. Though yes overheads are decreasing on the higher SKUs. 

4 minutes ago, NubCak said:

AMD is not really the economy option, the top end AMD processors have a correct price, it's intel who's stuck in the past and refusing to compete in the same spaces, just look at how Intel refuses to release processors with the same core counts as AMD especially in the high end, they are the ones dodging in this fight, 10 cores, 14 cores and 18 cores, notice the obvious lack of 12 cores, 16 cores? 

Do you know anything about ringbus? There's a reason they run lower core counts. 

4 minutes ago, NubCak said:

You're lying to yourself if you believe your overclock to 5ghz is/was a challenge. 

Pretty sure they picked a 9th gen chip because they reliably do that, and can often do higher. 

[Guest]

[Fast_N_Curious]

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Oh I know, it was just a misunderstanding that this was THE priority for them. 

 

Certainly not - but it's that 2-minute benchmark that entirely dictates your choice of hardware, not the rest. If that wasn't a goal you'd likely choose something completely different.

Please forgive me for being "performance oriented" with my computer build. And yes, benchmark scores, although not this one in particular, were used to narrow down my hardware choices. 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Y'all need to learn to just... complement someone's build. It's finished, OP bought all the stuff and built it, suggestions are useless. Talk with them about what all they do with it, how it performs, find something cool to blab about. Are you hardware enthusiasts or internet assholes who want to stomp on everyone's rigs if they don't fit your preferences? I'll ree at Ryzen all day because it doesn't suit my preferences, but if it's someone else's rig and they're happy with it, hell yeah

I'm not so mad at the build. I'm more taking issues with his choice to prove it making sense.

I don't want to stomp on rigs and if he wouldn't have pushed so hard that the 9600KF is amazing I would have left it alone.

I've talked 0 about preference, I've talked only about numbers. I didn't say "I like ryzen for _____" 9th gen made little sense when 3rd gen ryzen came out, about the only case was 1080P 240hz+ gaming.

cinebench r15 single core

3800X at 4.3 212

9900K at 5.0 222.

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

Okay guys lets reel this back in. I did not mean to open up a can of worms by putting Ryzens IMC under the microscope. 

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic Cleaned =-

 

As the OP requested... Lets bring this conversation back on topic.

Its a Build Log not a debate with the OP.

[Fast_N_Curious]

7 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Certainly not - but it's that 2-minute benchmark that entirely dictates your choice of hardware, not the rest. If that wasn't a goal you'd likely choose something completely different.

Not true. *part* of what dictated my choice of hardware was the simple fact that AMD currently has zero offerings on the market that overclock well, much less make it to the impossible goal of 5GHz. (Among other things as well, like IMC situation we mentioned above). Intel was my only choice.

 

Another reason why I chose the 9600KF over the 9900K: I insisted on air cooling and maintaining a "numbers matching" MSI themed system (of motherboard, GPU and cooler) which would not have been possible if my thermal margin was compromised and had to resort to a liquid cooling solution. I knew I would have a better chance of hitting my goal of a 5.0GHz all core overclock on a chip that produces less heat. And I pulled it off. Exactly what I wanted to do. down to this very post. 

7 hours ago, NubCak said:

I find it interesting that you shun AMD for removing headroom in overclocking when has and is doing the same thing, look at the new i9-10900 or whatever its called, its clocked at 5.2ghz out of the box, just like what overclockers were able to push on 9th gen, nothing about that chip is different than the 9th gen aside from minor changes. When the 10900 or whatever gets into overclocker's hands it will be the same deal, is already tapped out. 

AMD is not really the economy option, the top end AMD processors have a correct price, it's intel who's stuck in the past and refusing to compete in the same spaces, just look at how Intel refuses to release processors with the same core counts as AMD especially in the high end, they are the ones dodging in this fight, 10 cores, 14 cores and 18 cores, notice the obvious lack of 12 cores, 16 cores? 

You're lying to yourself if you believe your overclock to 5ghz is/was a challenge. 

Remember, a die shrink doesn't necessarily facilitate a boost in performance. Just because Intel is stuck at 14nm does not mean that they've stopped refining their dies for better performance and higher clocks. Clocks have gradually increased as the platform has matured over the past few years. So Intel is STILL making gains on its core architecture while STILL leaving meat on the bone for enthusiast overclockers such as myself to capitalize on. This is far from what AMD is doing with Ryzen. It's also a little bit ironic that all Ryzen chips are all unlocked yet they are most efficient when left in an untampered state. This is paradoxical. The entire premise behind an unlocked multiplier is to tap the processors performance potential. Intel gets a bad rap for not unlocking all their high end CPUs but I would argue its AMD here that should be getting the bad rap for giving us "unlocked" chips that are actually slower when they are unlocked.  Think about it. The "unlocked commitment" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. A gimmick to help further push the narrative (and try to maintain the public perception) that AMD is still catering to overclockers. Which they most definitely are not. 

 

5GHz was no challenge at all. Intel makes this a breeze. Still, the thrill never gets old. Computers are super simple and if you know how to manipulate them you can really do well for yourself. 

 

Do you know why Intel has been hesitant to jump on the core count bonanza? 

 

Because they know increasing core count to a point does not mean increased performance to the end user. There is a reason many state of the art laptops in 2020 still ship with dual core CPUs. 

 

As I said before, AMD lead the charge for saturating the market with 6-8-10-12 core CPUs and up years ago. They knew they couldn't beat intel in per core or single core performance so they just added more cores. While Ryzen's IPC has certainly increased, It's misleading if you don't understand how benchmarks work. 

 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

On 3/6/2020 at 4:41 AM, GDRRiley said:

It isn’t wrong. I owned a 6600k. I know how many issues it had at 1080p high frame rate. I was just at 1440p pulling load off of the CPU. 
bf4 isn’t as bad as many new games. 

You never followed up on my question what does the 6600k have to do with the 9600KF?

 

PS My memory latency result on the 9600KF rig on the leaderboard I posted was done on basically stock timings with no tuning. Only thing I did was set the OC to 5.2 on the CPU.. I've since whittled it down to ~40 ns.

 

I also have another few ram kits coming in this week to further push the memory subsystem including:

8GB Teamgroup Tforce Xtreeme DDR4 kit (samgsung S-die)

and

16GB Patriot Viper 4133 (Samsung b - die)

[nox_]

12 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

simply unacceptable for my personal preferences and standards.

Got it, that I can understand.

I'm very curious about something unrelated to all this, what do you use your computer for? What software you use and etc.?

[Fast_N_Curious]

11 hours ago, noxdeouroboros said:

Got it, that I can understand.

I'm very curious about something unrelated to all this, what do you use your computer for? What software you use and etc.?

If thousands of a second determine the difference between winner and loser (in the bobsled, for example) than there no reason why you couldn't apply the same standard to computer benchmarking. In other words: There are literally thousands of competitions of all sorts that boil down to milliseconds in separating winner from loser. So it would not be unprecedented to apply the same high standard to benchmarking. Because "time" is the quintessential methodology or "marker" in the assessment of performance through competition. 

 

As for the computer's work use:

-Remote IT support, lots of LogMeIn type stuff and some network administration (sonicwall stuff) 

-Remote server management via MSTSC or LMI

-I'm using ConnectWise, a web based IT management solution (not resource intensive)

-Configuring and provisioning of BDR's and NAS devices

-Documentation and procedural write-ups (i.e. instructions or "how to" guides) for specific hardware 

-Some minimal excel stuff, but word is something I use quite often

-Outlook 2019

 

For entertainment purposes: 

-overclocking, fine tuning and tweaking

-benchmarking

-gaming but not every day

-internet forums (computer, political, automotive, marine related)

-youtube, etc