i've just discovered that the case/GPU RGB's sync up to music and pulse with the beat.
ok, these zoomers are onto something.
ok, these zoomers are onto something.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:34:38)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-12 02:26:06)
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:49:11)
the quadro cards are insanely nice but a highly specific instrument, you're right.Dilbert_X wrote:
I could probably justify a new machine, but Quadro cards are so very different from gaming cards, a high level CAD card is still shit by gaming measure. Then again gaming cards seem to work fine for CAD, if noisy.
I am doing some graphics intensive CAD now, and its nice being able to run it at max resolution (3840x2160 bitches) with no stuttering on a base level card, so for that I don't need to upgrade at all.
Best option is to give it a year and see how it goes, after switching to Win 10 everything is actually more stable, if my micro-business can justify it I'll be able to pay it out of tax.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:44:14)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-04-12 02:49:41)
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 02:52:49)
not true at all. china has top-rate electrical engineers at this point, whether you like to admit it or not (the harbin institute and similar is putting out just as much research as MIT; i publish a fucking tonne of it in the same journals which MIT scientists opt for). california sounds great if you're a designer who wants to sip chai lattes and obsess over the gradient of curves, though.Pretty sure most of the real work has been done in California.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:19:26)
at the budget he's working in, it would be a tremendous difference to have 16Gb of proper-performance RAM and a better graphics card.coke wrote:
Yeah i'd drop down to 16gb of ram and spend more on the gfx card, look at one of the amd ones like the 5600xt or the 5700
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:29:43)
Good point about the ram. I cancelled the 3000Mhz for 3200Mhz of the same brand and amount for a $3 difference. I am still sticking with the fancier motherboard. I can stick anything in or out of it as time goes on. Motherboards are forever. I don't want to save $50 today and be upset I can't put in a Ryzen 4xxx when the prices bottom out someday.uziq wrote:
why do you need PCIe 4.0? certainly not for a 1660. i'm using M.2 SSD storage on PCIe 3.0 and it is still blisteringly fast, much better than non-PCIe storage. PCIe 4.0 is still 'future potential' technology whereas you've forked out for that motherboard and stuck it with an underperforming CPU/RAM combo and a mid-range GPU that will soon be nudged out of benchmarks.
slightly strange order of priorities when you intend to replace the CPU with a future design before getting the most of your hardware now. but okay.
refusing to go backwards is just plain silly if you don't use 16Gb of RAM. you don't get any performance increase by having un-used RAM; it's either in use or it's sitting there like a high-tech paperweight (on windows, anyway). didn't you do some process monitoring on your old machine and monitor your use % ? when buying my machine and getting spec advice from people online (which i badly needed, having to catch-up on a decade's worth of advances in two weeks), they kept saying about RAM: 'if you need 32Gb or 64Gb, you'll already know'. this just seemed cryptic and stupid to me -- but it's oddly completely true. RAM is an invisible component when it's working properly: if your machine isn't hanging or pausing to sweat and lift weights on 16Gb, then you literally do not need 32Gb of RAM.
i wouldn't say this even matters but you have effectively gimped your CPU performance with the way Ryzen works by using 3000Mhz RAM. and you've spent $80 more on a motherboard than you need to for the promise of a brand new PCI-e 4.0 bandwidth protocol, which seems bizarre given your other choices. if you were going to insist on 32 Gb of RAM, 'because the numbers shouldn't go backwards', then you shouldn't have cheaped out on low-performance RAM. 3000Mhz RAM was mid-range 3/4 years ago. it's silly to talk about future-proofing your machine with next-gen CPU upgrades when your current-gen AM4 ryzen is being throttled.
I have had issues with AMD driver's before which is why I switched to Nvidia which I have never had issues with.coke wrote:
Yeah i'd drop down to 16gb of ram and spend more on the gfx card, look at one of the amd ones like the 5600xt or the 5700
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-04-12 03:37:27)
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:41:42)
yeah i don't think you should swap out your motherboard. it's a good motherboard. but if there are budgetary constraints and reasons for why you've gone with slow RAM and only 6Gb of VRAM, then i would start to reconsider. i agree that it is good for peace of mind to have a very capable, stable motherboard that is not going to pop an aorta or frustrate you with limited BIOS options.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You talked me into faster ram.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 03:57:06)
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.Uzique wrote:
but it's done now.
Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-04-12 04:21:42)
i think you made a good decision here. the better-speed RAM will give you more of a performance boost in almost every single use-case scenario. you will not miss the extra 16Gb RAM. i assume you have current-gen SSD storage already, as it's not in your build, and windows can page file into that when it really needs the overspill (which will be seldom). or you can, you know, close a program or whatever to free up the RAM. having good-speed memory that will play nice with your CPU is going to be a lot more use than having a lot of unused slow stuff sitting around.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.Uzique wrote:
but it's done now.
Okay so I ordered 3600 MHz (2x8) RAM, I rolled over the budget to get a 1660 ti which while still 6 GB, is a 17% improvement over the 1660. The cost of the nearest 8 GB card is still almost double and I can live on lower settings.
it's more a matter of manufacturers wanting to rewrite the BIOS than AMD's decision. it will be the same socket design. it's still a fundamentally better decision to spend your allocated budget on a mobo/CPU/RAM bundle that is going to work 100% optimally now than to sacrifice stuff for a CPU that's another year away, in any case. Ryzen 3xxx is not going to be trash-heaped in 1 or even 5 year's time. there is still considerable upgrade room even in going from a 6-core to a 12-core 3900X, for example.As for your 450, I think you are being a little over optimistic about potential Ryzen 4xxx support. The 450 wasn't even the best option in it's generation the 470 was.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-12 04:48:52)
Just by a second SSD and install games on it. The difference between a SATA SSD and M.2 one is only noticable if you use Afterburner to monitor FPS numbers.uziq wrote:
i think you made a good decision here. the better-speed RAM will give you more of a performance boost in almost every single use-case scenario. you will not miss the extra 16Gb RAM. i assume you have current-gen SSD storage already, as it's not in your build, and windows can page file into that when it really needs the overspill (which will be seldom). or you can, you know, close a program or whatever to free up the RAM. having good-speed memory that will play nice with your CPU is going to be a lot more use than having a lot of unused slow stuff sitting around.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Actually no it's not. I have Amazon and things are all delayed a week. So I can cancel and order freely for awhile.Uzique wrote:
but it's done now.
Okay so I ordered 3600 MHz (2x8) RAM, I rolled over the budget to get a 1660 ti which while still 6 GB, is a 17% improvement over the 1660. The cost of the nearest 8 GB card is still almost double and I can live on lower settings.
one thing worth mentioning with RAM usage is chrome. it is unique among everyday applications, including browsers, for eating RAM. it's terribly inefficient. upping tabs just seems to infinitely chew more RAM. i've never used chrome so this was never something for me to think about. i think the only advantage it confers is slightly better video codec support as standard. honestly i would just use another one of the 3/4 great alternative browsers, rather than spend 2x as much for RAM just for a web browser. you can always open that 4K video that won't play properly in firefox in a separate chrome window.
i think the entire moore's law-like assumption that RAM needs are going to keep doubling every few years is actually reaching a wall at this point. we already have 4k/8k video, web design standards and web browsers have been locked into place for years; application GUIs and office suites etc are all just much of the same, refinements of the same thing. the doubling from 16-->32Gb is likely not going to come until there's some major overhaul in operating system design. i think it's pretty telling that apple, who hard-solder all their components onto their mainboards, are still opting for 16Gb as the standard even on their top-end machines. 32gb and 64gb is for the people using adobe or video/design software that has its own heavily intensive memory caching needs.
on top of that, it's trivial to replace RAM in the future, or to expand it (if you have 4 slots), when it becomes apparent that you definitely do need it.
if i were to do my build again i would probably downsize to 16Gb of RAM and double my M.2 SSD to 1Tb, instead. i was really surprised by the size of current-gen games. the latest CoD game is like 180Gb. there goes one third of my brand new SSD.