• PC Building V3 - Complain about RAM prices here
    818 replies, posted
Well, I took a look at this and I think my mind might be changed on this (assuming the motherboard I'm looking at even supports this stuff, I've been out of the loop for a long time now) http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-860-Evo-500GB-vs-Samsung-960-Evo-NVMe-PCIe-M2-250GB/m428560vsm200373 Same price, half the storage, but over triple the performance in some applications. Can I ask what the effective difference between the Evo and Pro lines is?
EVO uses 3-bit TLC (Samsung calls it 3-bit MLC) and PRO uses 2-bit MLC. Basically, Pro drives use faster, more durable, and more expensive NAND flash, while Evo drives use slower, less durable, cheaper NAND. I recommend Pros to people who either have the coin to drop, or are going to be hammering their drive with very large, intensive workloads very frequently. Evos are good enough for most consumers.
Honestly, speaking from experience, if you can afford a 1TB SSD, there really isn't any reason other than cost against it. I myself have a 1TB SATA SSD for games and storage, and a 128GB NVMe SSD for boot and applications, coupled with 16GB DDR4. Even with just a Ryzen 5 it is literally the fastest Windows PC I have ever used.
If you can afford large SSDs, then hell yeah go for it. I prefer a ton of bulk storage, so I'm rocking a bunch of 6TB WD Golds in RAID 0 here and get pretty good speeds anyway.
'bout 2500 dkkr or 330 Eur. Which I realize with the prices you're talking is a fairly high budget, but shit's way more 'spensive here in Europe.
using keys that were intended for organizations for use as volume licenses and then reselling those to unaffiliated third parties is a tenuous legal standing at best
Looks good. The only thing I can get pedantic about would be RAM. That Corsair looks like hynix memory with those timings, so I'm naturally not a fan. Some of the best 3200 RAM on the market: https://pcpartpicker.com/product/cvGj4D/team-dark-pro-16gb-2-x-8gb-ddr4-3200-memory-tdpgd416g3200hc14adc01
If you go for a SATA-based SSD you can get 500GB at the same price point. If you want to keep the M.2 formfactor, this seems like a good choice. Alternatively, you could downgrade to a SATA 250GB SSD and save some money. The speeds you get from NVMe drives are pointless for daily tasks. They're irrelevant for load times since SSD speed isn't really the bottleneck, and you're not going to see a difference from the read/write increase since you'll struggle to saturate the bus unless you run oddly specific tasks on your machine.
tbh it sounds silly but i'm really digging the black/white look i have going on, and i'm not super super super anal when it comes to RAM
The amount of conflicting information I'm getting regarding the real-world performance of SATA vs PCIe NVMe SSDs is driving me absolutely insane
so there's SATA over SATA, SATA over M.2, NVMe over M.2 jesus so many choices i don't know which one i want
I wrote up a post, but basically - I can't say whether going from an 850 to a 960 really "blew" Glitchvid away, but personally, I'd be inclined to put that up to "also reinstalled Windows etc.". Either way, SATA SSDs are definitely snappy "enough" from my experience. I have an 250GB 840 EVO myself, and I must admit that after having had it for a few years, it fills up. That's simply a fact of life - shit accumulates, maybe you'd like to have a couple of games on your drive, maybe you moved some RAW video files on there for editing, etc. Now I don't have 4TB of HDD storage, but I'd be inclined to say anyone could fill up 250GB over a couple of years - for that reason I'd go with the 500GB SATA over an NVMe 250GB. I'd say less file managing would be a larger benefit than general "snappiness" when Windows, well, seems snappy enough on this. I'm not gonna say Glitchvid is wrong, but here's another conflicting voice to add to the choir.
These two choices have the exact same performance, basically. Just depends on whether you'd rather fill an M.2 slot or a SATA port.
Windows boot times are pretty trivial since fastboot, even HDDs can "boot" fast into windows. Really you get the performance boost of having your appdata, pagedata, and on-disk cache on a very low latency non-blocking device - which improves both windows smoothness and general application speed. Plus if you use just about any tools (Photoshop, AE, Resolve) those load insanely faster since they're largely lose files and hit a lot or outside dependencies (and often have scratchdkisks). Game loading doesn't surprise me, since like I said games don't shown off what SSDs are good at, so SSDs on an SSD interface of course isn't going to be particularly mind blowing. Basically, take a look at perrmon and see how much random activity Chrome/Firefox, Windows, all your electron apps, and various stuff is reading/writing - that all acts much better over NVMe than SATA. Also, like for like, the NVMe drives are roughly only 50% premium. If you care about price/GB then go with 4+TB WD Golds (~¢4/GB vs ¢26/GB for SSDs) paired with a super fast NVMe drive.
You should never, ever have fastboot enabled, it causes an enormous amount of problems.
I haven't had any problems. Either way, Windows 10 and modern UEFI makes booting almost a non issue, unless you have a lot of startup shit going on; in which case, again NVMe is going to help since: https://s.gvid.me/s/2018/06/02/yrc640.png
For a Ryzen 5 2600 system, is there going to be appreciable performance difference between DDR4-3000 and DDR4-3200, especially considering the price difference?
3200 kit =/= 3200 kit that's on the QVL and will actually hit 3200. It's a lot better but Ryzen is still picky about what RAM will actually hit the DOCP profile.
I'm getting this, since it's such a popular memory kit I figure it'll be fine.
the only odd thing fastboot does for me is tell me outrageous active times on task manager's cpu setting standard boot is super slow on my laptop....
Question: If you're using a SATA SSD with an absurdly high write endurance (1TB 3DN, 400TBW min), is there any reason not to use hibernation or hybrid sleep instead of just sleep on that PC? I've already lost crucial work twice now due to overnight power failures (which my UPS doesn't always outlast), and even though I plan to get a better UPS, I want ZERO chance of that happening again.
If you give the SSD ~10% over-provisioning, you should be basically good until your platform is already obsolete ASF, assuming you pick an SSD with good NAND (Basically, all modern Samsung NAND, some Intel/Micron NAND).
Post individual links to the ones you're looking at. The only real differences are cooler design and customer support. Factory overclocks don't matter much at all.
Gigabyte has the better cooler there, although I seriously doubt that the RX 560 actually runs hot enough for that to be an issue at all. Gigabyte and MSI both have trashy customer support, although I have lately heard very bad things about Gigabyte's QC. I'd lean towards the MSI, I guess, but know that there's zero functional difference between the two.
Personally I'd recommend re-balancing your parts list or saving a little more to get either an RX570 or GTX1060 RX560 is fine for a lot of stuff, and is a great value for photo editing for hardware video encoding, but for games the RX570 and GTX1060 are just so much more well-rounded
I've made that mistake before, trust me on this dude. Buying a cheap card now will just mean more money spent long-term, because your next upgrade will be much sooner. Waiting and saving for an objectively better experience is almost always the right choice. Unless your current hardware is failing; imminent failure is one of the very few exceptions.
Okay, so... I've revised my stance on AMD in light of how crazy cheap the 2700x is and of having eight freaking cores... not to mention that it's ihs is soldered, meaning no delid is necessary... What sucks is the 3.7ghz clock speed. The 8700k overclocked sounded okay, though only so much better than my 4790k. The Ryzen can barely overclock at all, and by my understanding is best left to modulate itself instead at a 4.3ghz max. I'm torn, because it sounds appealing, and doing 3d animation 8 cores sounds GREAT for sims... but a lesser/identical clock speed sucks. Even now I'm getting stellar gaming results, but I'd still hate to make no gains at all... I know the next Intel series arrives in October at 10nm... If that ends up being 8 core too with higher clock, I'm sold. When do we usually get specs for this stuff?
I doubt that. Intel's 10nm node is going so bad they've canceled the "Knights Hill" series of Phi coprocessor, and are instead exposing it on 14nm++++. Look forward to TSMC and GloFo 7nm processes, especially once EUV gets rolled out things are going to be fucking insane (GloFo is targetting ~5GHz, meaning we could get boosts similar to how Ryzen/12nm targeted 3.6
Is there any reason a PC with these parts struggle with Fortnight? https://i.gyazo.com/3fc086af39af0d861836c67ea37673d5.png
what monitor do you have, i dont think a 1060 will do 144fps on fortnite just going by uk prices you could get a cheaper ryzen 3 or a faster ryzen 5 for the same money, some of the ryzens come with a pretty decent cooler
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.