New PC

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: New PC

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 08:51

AjRyder wrote:
Tue, 10. Aug 21, 07:56
The only trouble with this website is this... The reviews are biased it is fanboy-based. Which does not give you a fair comparison of the processors. It is just someone going ooooo get this processor because I have it and it is really good...
So ignore the reviews and just look at the raw performance numbers?

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: New PC

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 10:03

Depends on the use case, but yes, I'd say in principle it is best ignored. The site seems to be an aggregate of PCs and configurations all out there and we can never know which configurations are behind the bars shown. I mean, it is not just the processor that defines a pc's performance. One would probably need a controlled environment and comparable build to determine which processor likes which tasks the most. But I am not an expert and I may be wrong !

For instance, my new build (with a Ryzen 7 5800X) does a basic scene in little path-tracer ~6 times faster than my old one (with an I7 6700). Or, it boots in 2-3 seconds. That's certainly not just the processor (wider threading, more cache, generally more instructions per cycle), there is also faster ram (3600Mhz compared to 2800), nvme disks pcie3 compared to good old SATA 7000rpm turntables, and of course a proud owner generally inclined to accept anything that meets their overblown expectations :-) (fanboy alarm going off)

-------------

I realized in my new PC that the fans of the AIO cooler are as loud as my vaccuum cleaner when there's calculation going on. Ok, that's an exaggeration, but nevertheless, I'll have to change them.

Saw an RX6700XT vga for 1200,- yesterday, and an RX6900XT for 1800,-. MSRP are 500,- and 650,- I think, so that's still a "thanks, but no thanks", I want an RX6800XT anyway. Hopefully it gets better towards the end of the year ...

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: New PC

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 12:40

BaronVerde wrote:
Tue, 10. Aug 21, 10:03
Depends on the use case, but yes, I'd say in principle it is best ignored. The site seems to be an aggregate of PCs and configurations all out there and we can never know which configurations are behind the bars shown.
Yeah, but given enough configurations, those errors will even out, so in a direct comparison between two processors the site gives a pretty good idea, IMHO. I wouldn't make it the only site I use for a buying decision, but it's certainly one data point worth looking at.

User avatar
Tamina
Moderator (Deutsch)
Moderator (Deutsch)
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun, 26. Jan 14, 09:56

Re: New PC

Post by Tamina » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 13:21

When AMD got comparable numbers to Intel, the website owner changed the rating-calculations so that Intel stayed on top (lowered Multithreading weight). When Ryzen got better in Singlethreading than Intel, the calculations were changed again, in a way that the flagship of AMD was worse then an older Intel i3 on that site.

When media reported about this, they went full victim mode and blamed an allgedly conspiracy on their social media, insulted reviewers and media. And in the aftermath they got banned on every reputable reviewer site, including the Intel subreddit https://amp.reddit.com/r/intel/comments ... om_rintel/

The remains of this story can be still seen on the About page
https://www.userbenchmark.com/page/about
The site is completely anonymous btw.. Nobody knows who those so called "Scientists and Engineers" are.

It is probably better to keep a distance from this website if you want to have a productive discussion.

Code: Select all

Und wenn ein Forenbösewicht, was Ungezogenes spricht, dann hol' ich meinen Kaktus und der sticht sticht sticht.
  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: New PC

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 14:21

Guys, I realized that when I saturate all cores with heavy calculation cpu temperature jumps to 87°C. It actually jumps like in a few seconds, I would assume that there's some damping due to the cooler.

Is that healthy ?
Did I possibly make a mistake assembling the cooler ?

It's blazingly fast tho ...

Edit: Looks like it is a common observation and AMD waves temps up to 95°C for the 5800X aside ... (third party info, no official link found)

'nother Edit: Ok, it was the overclocking. I found a BIOS setting that limits the processor to its nominal frequeny and now temperature stays well around 55°C.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: New PC

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 16:08

BaronVerde wrote:
Tue, 10. Aug 21, 14:21
Guys, I realized that when I saturate all cores with heavy calculation cpu temperature jumps to 87°C. It actually jumps like in a few seconds, I would assume that there's some damping due to the cooler.
Even overclocked it shouldn't *immediately* jump to 87C when under load, the mass of the heat sink will take a little while to go up. When you say you've got it clocked back to normal levels, is it still boosting when under heavy single-threaded loads like it should?

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: New PC

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 10. Aug 21, 17:21

Haven't tried heavy single thread loads, but nope, clocked normally and under all cylinders it goes up gradually from ~33° idle temp to ~52° full steam.

That jump in a few seconds when off the chain is probably just how it behaves, not an assembly error ...

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Rug
Posts: 1791
Joined: Fri, 21. Nov 03, 14:14
x4

Re: New PC

Post by Rug » Wed, 29. Sep 21, 22:29

Not quite part of this new PC thread, but I think close enough to not warrant starting a new thread entirely, so ....

I have quite an old monitor - it's a 19" 1440x900 job. Recently I had access to a 1080 monitor, which was nice, but has gone back today.

I'm feeling the need to upgrade the monitor now, but I'm not quite sure what to go for in terms of size etc. I have had the current monitor for a decade or so, and would expect the replacement to last me a number of years - with a probable PC upgrade in that time, so I think it may be worth a bit of future proofing. But currently I'm running an old i5-4670K 3.4GHz system, with a 1050ti GFX card. This works fine for the games I play (EUIV, Skyrim, Factorio, Rimworld, X4 - that kind of stuff. No fast twitch shooters). So would I be best sticking to a 24" or 25" 1080 screen, or would I see benefit from getting a 27" 1440 screen instead ?

Budget will be flexible, but I'd say £300 would be right at the very top end, but could be justified if it is going to be a piece of kit that I'll be happy with in 5 years time. I know the future is impossible to be certain about, but I expect some of you have some good ideas of what's likely to be in the pipeline...

Or am I such a dinosaur that it's time to bite the bullet and upgrade the lot. Faster processor, Memory, SSD instead of spinning rust, as well as the monitor - the whole shebang ? If so, then recommendations welcome ! I don't want anything that's all shiny neon fans and the like though. I'd prefer just a plan black box that works noticeably faster than I have become used to if I go down this route. Budget for PC and monitor bundle could be £1500 perhaps, but less would be much more palatable. But I'm not really noticing problems with what I have now (apart from the screen size and resolution, but that's the only more modern stuff I've experienced - so I may be seriously missing out !)

Help ?

Thanks.

Rug
I like to think everyone just wants to feel human.

(Antilogic)

User avatar
red assassin
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
x3

Re: New PC

Post by red assassin » Wed, 29. Sep 21, 22:34

I wouldn't buy anything less than a 27" 1440p at this point. My partner uses a Dell S2721DS, which is great for the money and within your budget. (Other monitors exist.) Your 1050 might struggle a bit with the higher resolution on some games, but you can always turn it down if it's too much of a problem and most of the games you play should be absolutely fine. (She has a 1060.)
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: New PC

Post by CBJ » Thu, 30. Sep 21, 01:20

I have to concur with red assassin here regarding the size and resolution, and indeed the supplier too, especially now that IPS panels have trickled down to the sub-£300 models.

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: New PC

Post by pjknibbs » Thu, 30. Sep 21, 07:48

I'm going to disagree with m'learned colleagues here--given the stated specs of your PC I don't think it'll handle 1440p all that well. 1080p would be fine. And now isn't a good time to do a major PC upgrade because of the ridiculous prices of graphics cards right now. An SSD upgrade would be totally something you should look at, though--SSDs are cheap and give an immediate shot in the arm to general usability of your PC.

Rug
Posts: 1791
Joined: Fri, 21. Nov 03, 14:14
x4

Re: New PC

Post by Rug » Thu, 30. Sep 21, 08:54

What does a 1440 screen look like running a game at 1080? Does the scaling make for a blurry image? I should have asked this at the same time as the original post, but it did not occur to me until too late.

Thanks for the replies so far.

Rug
I like to think everyone just wants to feel human.

(Antilogic)

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: New PC

Post by CBJ » Thu, 30. Sep 21, 09:43

A scaled image will never be quite as sharp as a native resolution one, but it's less of an issue than it used to be, partly because of the smaller dot pitch and partly because the scaling systems themselves have improved. Whether it's an issue will depend on which games you can and can't run at native resolutions, and how it looks for the individual games that you can't run at native resolution. Bear in mind that you also have the option of running some games in windowed mode, which allows you to keep native resolution at the expense of a bit of size and immersion; again, whether this is actually a decent option depends somewhat on the game.

jlehtone
Posts: 21801
Joined: Sat, 23. Apr 05, 21:42
x4

Re: New PC

Post by jlehtone » Thu, 30. Sep 21, 11:54

There is also the option to not scale, i.e. to have the extra pixels of 1440p black around the 1080p image, but changing resolutions often is not so fun.

The Dell S2721DS has pixel pitch: 0.2331 mm. A 24" (Dell, 1920x1080) has pitch: 0.2745 mm. A 22" (Dell, 1920x1080) has pitch: 0.249 mm x 0.241 mm. A 1920x1080 block of the 27" 1440p display is thus a bit smaller than 22" display. (A 27" 1080p display has pitch: 0.3114 mm -- larger pixels.)

Older 24" Dell with 1440p has pitch 0.206 mm. One* can see aliasing on 24" 1080p, while not really on that 24" 1440p. Turning on anti-aliasing levels, but then the GPU works more.

I had 3440x1440 with GTX 970 and it was ok (by my standards), but 970 is much stronger than 1050. Can't remember whether I had 2560x1440 with GTX [45]60 or only after getting the 970.


A fact is that once you get more screen estate, it is really hard to go back, "downsize".


*Effect of pixel size depends on individuals.

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: New PC

Post by BaronVerde » Wed, 20. Oct 21, 00:07

Guys builders and gamers,

my new graphics card has 2 pcie power connectors. The power supply comes with cables that have two serial plugs on the appliance end. Should I use one cable to the power supply or two (distribute load ?) ?

My old gtx 970 drained about the same power as the new 6700xt (a bit more than 300W max) but only had one connector.

Cheers

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

Gavrushka
Posts: 8072
Joined: Fri, 26. Mar 04, 19:28
x4

Re: New PC

Post by Gavrushka » Wed, 20. Oct 21, 10:37

BaronVerde wrote:
Wed, 20. Oct 21, 00:07
Guys builders and gamers,

my new graphics card has 2 pcie power connectors. The power supply comes with cables that have two serial plugs on the appliance end. Should I use one cable to the power supply or two (distribute load ?) ?

My old gtx 970 drained about the same power as the new 6700xt (a bit more than 300W max) but only had one connector.

Cheers
I went from a single power connector card (GTX1660) on my old system to a custom system with a 3070 card. - The new system was prebuilt, but with the graphics card left out, during postage, for obvious reasons. Even though it only drew a max of 225 watts, the instructions from the builder (Palicomp) insisted I must connect both power connectors.

Far less than your 300 watts, but it does suggest both should be connected.
“Man, my poor head is battered,” Ed said.

“That explains its unusual shape,” Styanar said, grinning openly now. “Although it does little to illuminate just why your jowls are so flaccid or why you have quite so many chins.”

“I…” Had she just called him fat? “I am just a different species, that’s all.”

“Well nature sure does have a sense of humour then,” Styanar said. “Shall we go inside? It’d not be a good idea for me to be spotted by others.”

jlehtone
Posts: 21801
Joined: Sat, 23. Apr 05, 21:42
x4

Re: New PC

Post by jlehtone » Wed, 20. Oct 21, 11:21

BaronVerde wrote:
Wed, 20. Oct 21, 00:07
I use one cable to the power supply or two (distribute load ?) ?
The recommendation* is to use two to distribute the load.

*That I saw on the net ... https://i.redd.it/qfwh3kboeyl51.png

BaronVerde
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 21:26
x4

Re: New PC

Post by BaronVerde » Wed, 20. Oct 21, 11:24

Thank you both.

That image clears it.

And I may have told nonsense, my variant drains 240W max.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: New PC

Post by Chips » Thu, 21. Oct 21, 13:12

Think it's the old fashioned "how much power can it supply on the rail..." or something similar; basically power = volts * amps, and your rail is 12v I assume for gfx card connectors.

Your PSU should say how many Amps it can supply per 12v connector, or certainly how many amps in total for 12v. Mine is apparently 46A, meaning 46*12 = 552W (600W supply). Now whether that's a max continuous load or not is about the power rating isn't it? Mine is bronze. It's an old PSU from 2012 but still brilliant :) However, given it claims a max 130W @ 3.3/5v then it's not going to be able to output a total of 682W if i'm drawing max on both 5 and 12v; so something will be less.

The bit I do not know is whether if you're just using 1x12v plug that you could ever draw 552W down it :D But certainly you can determine if you've got 3 lines (all separate) that it'd be the total 12v Wattage / 3 for power on each? The whole "don't use connectors on same line, use different lines" may be because of that, or may just be because it'll draw what it needs from both, which won't overload a single one or if one fails the other still carries on? I've literally no idea :D

Unsure if that makes sense, but it does mean you can check the 12v amp supply on your PSU and calculate it's wattage. If you had a 500W psu but could only supply 250W at 12v then it'd be a problem regardless of how many of it's 12v lines and plugs you use.

jlehtone
Posts: 21801
Joined: Sat, 23. Apr 05, 21:42
x4

Re: New PC

Post by jlehtone » Thu, 21. Oct 21, 17:36

I saw somewhere ( https://www.igorslab.de/en/up-to-600-wa ... exclusive/ ) specs of a new connector (12+4 pins?) that could supply almost 600 Watts. Isn't it the number of wires and their thickness that determines how much power can flow through cable without overheat/melt/burst?

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”