131–140 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember cyrix being later in the game with its 686/166 Mhz proc which did wonders.
Cyrix had a 486.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 65W versions should be trivial to cool silently, a $40 heatsink with a single low speed 12cm fan (500~600 rpm) does the job well with my CPUs. For a 95W TDP you might need to spend a little more (like on those big Noctua heatsinks with 14cm fans), but silent air-cooling is definitely possible. (Water is always trickier, AIO kits will typically be a little noisier due to the pump).
At these TDPs, fully passive cooling is an option: http://www.silentpcreview.com/NoFan_CR-95C_Copper
In a smaller HTPC it can make sense to go passive but for an 8-core desktop workstation I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. Your PSU and GPU will likely have fans, also with a PCIe SSD it's better to have some airflow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 65W versions should be trivial to cool silently, a $40 heatsink with a single low speed 12cm fan (500~600 rpm) does the job well with my CPUs. For a 95W TDP you might need to spend a little more (like on those big Noctua heatsinks with 14cm fans), but silent air-cooling is definitely possible. (Water is always trickier, AIO kits will typically be a little noisier due to the pump).
AFAIK the Ryzen 1700 (TDP 65W) is supposed to come with a "Wraith" cooler from AMD and those new ones are apparently better than their shitty older counterparts from the Vishera days (I had one and I'm glad I switched to a near silent Arctic cooler).
More importantly for some, it's a 95W AMD part vs a 140W Intel part. If the power delta stays the same even for mainstream parts, does this mean AMD will become a good quiet option too? By quiet I mean "I can't hear it at night" not "I can't hear it over the music". Edit: Also, I think data centers these days are limited in density by power delivery and cooling. Even a 25W delta adds up when you're talking about thou…
I expect the "140W" Intel part will have closer power consumption to Ryzen in non-AVX loads, and outperform Ryzen in AVX loads while using more power.
Wow... I really hope this is true and that it's a sign that AMD have their mojo back. Partly because I have a sentimental favoritism towards AMD, and partly because Intel (and Nvidia) need competition.
Ryzen leaks conspicuously don't mention gaming or the i7-7700K. AMD may win in a very small market yet lose the mainstream.
Gaming performance is irrelevant for top CPUs, the difference appears only in low resolutions and old games.
If we look at PC exclusives [1] then we can see that these are extremely CPU-hungry games. This hunger only goes up if we want to achieve a framerate higher than 60, say going for 144.
I personally have an i7 @ 3.8 GHz with GTX 1060 and none of these games can hold a stable 1080p @ 144 Hz. What's more, I've benchmarked the effect of changing GPU/CPU and increased CPU power increases FPS far more than increased GPU.
I upgraded from Radeon R270X to GTX 1060. In multiplatform games this is a huge leap. Battlefield 4 (1080p Ultra) goes from 43.1 to 94.8 [2], a whopping +120% increase. While in Dota 2 (1080p Ultra) that only netted me a +11% gain. Then when I overclocked my i7 from 2.8 GHz to 3.8 GHz I got a +23% increase.
--
[1] For example Dota 2, H1Z1, DayZ, Civilization 6, Guild Wars 2.
[2] http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1043 & http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This question comes up constantly. Anybody doing anything with more than 16GB, especially data science (think all the R and Python people, all scientists), anybody running a memory cached data store (all server side people on mongo, redis, etc), and anybody doing finance or engineering, wants ECC. Basically anybody doing anything where data persistence is important, and/or where even the slightest chance of silent co…
> Anybody doing anything with more than 16GB, especially data science (think all the R and Python people, all scientists) Not sure I agree. Most science datasets (both from simulations and experiments) are sufficiently noisy that if your scientific end results and conclusions change as a result of even thousands of bitflips in your 16 GB of data, you're Doing It Wrong and your article isn't worth the paper it's print…
More generally, it's not unreasonable to say that our entire computing paradigm rests on accurate RAM. Above 16GB, the risks just become too big for anybody doing serious work, and not just messing around with prototypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially since AMD's APUs' integrated graphics have stayed superior to Intel's.
Is it still true? http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/feature-integrated-graphics-f...
More importantly for some, it's a 95W AMD part vs a 140W Intel part. If the power delta stays the same even for mainstream parts, does this mean AMD will become a good quiet option too? By quiet I mean "I can't hear it at night" not "I can't hear it over the music". Edit: Also, I think data centers these days are limited in density by power delivery and cooling. Even a 25W delta adds up when you're talking about thou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At these TDPs, fully passive cooling is an option: http://www.silentpcreview.com/NoFan_CR-95C_Copper
That's huge :) In a smaller HTPC it can make sense to go passive but for an 8-core desktop workstation I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. Your PSU and GPU will likely have fans, also with a PCIe SSD it's better to have some airflow.
Passive cooling isn't for everyone, but the remarkable efficiency of modern components has made it a perfectly feasible option even for high performance workstations. You can choose whatever level of noise you prefer, from extremely quiet to dead silent.