Cable management and routing in a PC can be a weird topic, because there's such a huge difference between pure substance, and smooth, sexy style. Now obviously, cable management in your computer can be very important for airflow and cooling, but it can have another function as well. If your cables are out of the way but accessible, you can have a much easier time moving things around, adding things, or troubleshooting.
Now I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts are freaking out right now, because I'm suggesting that there might be a drawback to having all but the last 3cm of cable invisible. That's ok, it still looks sexy, and unless you're actually adding a new component, it's not really that much more difficult.
For the lazy, understand: I'm not endorsing some tangled rats nest that looks like it was wired by a spaghetti chef that turns into a semi-solid wall between your fans and your components. If you do this, trained killer robot mongooses will track you down and stab you in the eyeballs with a rusty wooden spork. And you'll deserve it.
So we're clear, I'm all for functional cable management. Get those puppies out of the way of airflow. Of course, that means you have to understand the direction and purpose of airflow in your case, but that's a whole different topic. Use zip ties, stuff things behind the motherboard tray, hide unused cables, use sleeved cables. I don't care how you do it, but let the air move in the directions it needs to in your PC.
On the other hand, I refuse to do the OCD cable management. Gasp and shudder in horror if you so desire, but I just can't see the point in spending so much time hiding cables that my PC is obsolete by the time I install the OS. (Granted, it probably will be anyway, but that's a different rant.) Now I'll be the first to admit, it looks damn sexy, but it's just ridiculous, particularly considering the fact that it's really not helping that much, unless you need the room for plumbing.
Back to the rats nest people... did you know your PC will stay cleaner, operate cooler, make less noise, and possibly even perform better if you fix your wires? (Individual results may vary, rant shown with optional equipment. Professional airflow in a closed case, do not try this at home.)
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
There Are No Stupid Questions... really?
Ever heard the old adage, there are no stupid questions? I'm here to tell you, that's as big a load of crap as a C-130 carrying fertilizer. I've heard quite a few impressive ones, between various forums, and people I've met. Sadly, I see about twenty times more stupid answers than questions. I'm far from perfect, and I know it, but I usually try to say when I'm not sure about something, and I can admit it when I'm proven wrong.
For starters, a couple of the dumbest questions. Just today, I saw a good one. "I want to put the liquid cooler back into the computer. I bought an extra syringe of thermal paste, and the instructions tell me to remove old thermal compound reside with isopropyl. Is this really necessary? I was planning on just heating up the old paste with a hairdryer, adding a bit of new paste, and "gluing" my computer back together. Is it bad to mix compounds? Even if I do remove my old paste, I'm not going to use this isopropyl stuff."
Now for starters, how do you get old enough to be trusted with tools and electronics and not know how to google on the very slim off chance you've never seen a bottle of rubbing alcohol? More importantly, a hair dryer? Last time I checked, moving around hot air, if it's dry enough, can cause some pretty hefty static. Static, of course, being one of those things we try to avoid having near our CPU for some batshit crazy reason. I think we're trying to keep balloons from sticking to it or something.
Another time, back in the Army, I got asked this gem: "I have my PC hooked up to my bigscreen TV with HDMI, but the sound won't come out the TV speakers." So, of course, my first question: "Is it connected to an HDMI port on your graphics card, or are you using an adapter?" I'm sure you can figure the rest of this one out. I guess since HDMI carries audio, it should be able to extrapolate appropriate audio from a video signal, and play it, right? Makes sense to me.
And now, for a collection of a tiny fraction of the dumbest advice I've ever seen given on various tech boards.
Here's one talking about paging issues and HDD speed. One of my all-time favorites.
"They USED to be a lot slower than ram. But the fundamentals are no longer like this. You see, RAM bus is outside the chip, hence subject to abysmally slow speeds compared to intra-chip solutions. It also means that the speed growth of the connections is limited. And while harddrive read/write speeds are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, similarly how hard drive sizes are, the linear growth of ram speed cant keep up. So hard drives ultimately have come close to the speed of RAM read and write, only being limited by the same outside-chip fundamental problems."
Advice on cleaning old TIM:
"tbh you are ok with a slightly damp cloth as long as you are gentle+careful and dont run any power through the cpu until its totally dry"
And, the best solution for scareware I've ever seen!
"try to update drivers! if not, just clean all unnecesary files from youre hdd, or reinstall (reinstall is the last option) ofcours you may need to buy a new hdd, cause these kinfs of slowdowns are happening cause of HDD or drivers, sometimes it maybe something like a soundcard, or overheating!
change the thermo paste on youre CPU, cause it might be overheating! its called autothrottling, you can disable that, just google it, but it maybe risky!"
So, let's get into explaining this really complicated concept, for anybody considering giving out tech advice. If you aren't sure, GOOGLE IT. Please. You'll save time explaining why you're wrong, and lower the potential of turning somebodies PC into a collection of overpriced paperweights. It isn't rocket science, hell it isn't even computer science. It's a combination of common sense and common courtesy. It isn't your PC, you don't have the right to ruin it by being a moron.
If you aren't willing to do a photo guide of whatever advice you're giving with YOUR PC, don't tell someone else to do it. I mean seriously, Information Technology isn't an event in the Special Olympics, so why try out?
For starters, a couple of the dumbest questions. Just today, I saw a good one. "I want to put the liquid cooler back into the computer. I bought an extra syringe of thermal paste, and the instructions tell me to remove old thermal compound reside with isopropyl. Is this really necessary? I was planning on just heating up the old paste with a hairdryer, adding a bit of new paste, and "gluing" my computer back together. Is it bad to mix compounds? Even if I do remove my old paste, I'm not going to use this isopropyl stuff."
Now for starters, how do you get old enough to be trusted with tools and electronics and not know how to google on the very slim off chance you've never seen a bottle of rubbing alcohol? More importantly, a hair dryer? Last time I checked, moving around hot air, if it's dry enough, can cause some pretty hefty static. Static, of course, being one of those things we try to avoid having near our CPU for some batshit crazy reason. I think we're trying to keep balloons from sticking to it or something.
Another time, back in the Army, I got asked this gem: "I have my PC hooked up to my bigscreen TV with HDMI, but the sound won't come out the TV speakers." So, of course, my first question: "Is it connected to an HDMI port on your graphics card, or are you using an adapter?" I'm sure you can figure the rest of this one out. I guess since HDMI carries audio, it should be able to extrapolate appropriate audio from a video signal, and play it, right? Makes sense to me.
And now, for a collection of a tiny fraction of the dumbest advice I've ever seen given on various tech boards.
Here's one talking about paging issues and HDD speed. One of my all-time favorites.
"They USED to be a lot slower than ram. But the fundamentals are no longer like this. You see, RAM bus is outside the chip, hence subject to abysmally slow speeds compared to intra-chip solutions. It also means that the speed growth of the connections is limited. And while harddrive read/write speeds are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, similarly how hard drive sizes are, the linear growth of ram speed cant keep up. So hard drives ultimately have come close to the speed of RAM read and write, only being limited by the same outside-chip fundamental problems."
Advice on cleaning old TIM:
"tbh you are ok with a slightly damp cloth as long as you are gentle+careful and dont run any power through the cpu until its totally dry"
And, the best solution for scareware I've ever seen!
"try to update drivers! if not, just clean all unnecesary files from youre hdd, or reinstall (reinstall is the last option) ofcours you may need to buy a new hdd, cause these kinfs of slowdowns are happening cause of HDD or drivers, sometimes it maybe something like a soundcard, or overheating!
change the thermo paste on youre CPU, cause it might be overheating! its called autothrottling, you can disable that, just google it, but it maybe risky!"
So, let's get into explaining this really complicated concept, for anybody considering giving out tech advice. If you aren't sure, GOOGLE IT. Please. You'll save time explaining why you're wrong, and lower the potential of turning somebodies PC into a collection of overpriced paperweights. It isn't rocket science, hell it isn't even computer science. It's a combination of common sense and common courtesy. It isn't your PC, you don't have the right to ruin it by being a moron.
If you aren't willing to do a photo guide of whatever advice you're giving with YOUR PC, don't tell someone else to do it. I mean seriously, Information Technology isn't an event in the Special Olympics, so why try out?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A Fool and His Money: Old CPUs.
One of the hot topics always popping up in discussion, is, of course, price/performance, value, and pure performance of CPUs. People try to generalize and say AMD is always better price/performance, even if Intel is slightly better. Or people point to clock speed and number of cores, like those are the only two relevant statistics in a CPU.
Since nobody with three functional brain cells is going to say AMD can outperform Intel these days, we can skip who has pure performance. That just leaves value and price/performance comparisons. I'm going to start those two off with value.
What is value, in terms of CPU, or computer parts in general? Well, there's several categories that have to be weighed here. Performance, price, needs, additional associated costs (motherboard, PSU, etc.), and upgrade path. The additional associated costs come into this, because lets face it, it doesn't do you any good to save $20 on CPU, and pay an additional $40 on motherboard. It does make you look kind of dumb, but that's about it.
Now, only you can determine the weight of the factors in value, but it's good to think about them anyways, when considering new components. Is it worth an additional $20 to have a socket with more CPUs coming for it? Are you willing to pay 15% more for a 30% improvement? Do you actually need the 6 physical cores of that PhenomII when you're only planning to play games, most of which are optimized for 2?
While you're deciding on the subjective value of components, price/performance is pretty much guaranteed to come up. There's only one real way to handle that. You need direct comparison benchmarks for the task you want to do, assign the lower value 100%, and determine the percentage of the higher performer. Then, do the same with the prices of CPU and motherboard combined, and see whether the additional performance is a higher percentage than additional price. For example, if the Intel configuration is 25% better for your primary task, and costs 15% more than the AMD configuration, the Intel build is better price/performance.
Why do I say you have to combine motherboard price with the CPU price? Because, we're determining price/performance, and since they can't go in the same motherboard, the only logical way to compare is to combine all the factors that will be different, and compare price/performance that way.
Granted, motherboard can affect performance, depending on features, but most of the features that can really affect performance, like SATA 6Gb/s, or extra power phases to OC cost more. Once you're looking at adding to the price for raw performance, you should stop comparing price/performance, and just shoot for performance again.
Since nobody with three functional brain cells is going to say AMD can outperform Intel these days, we can skip who has pure performance. That just leaves value and price/performance comparisons. I'm going to start those two off with value.
What is value, in terms of CPU, or computer parts in general? Well, there's several categories that have to be weighed here. Performance, price, needs, additional associated costs (motherboard, PSU, etc.), and upgrade path. The additional associated costs come into this, because lets face it, it doesn't do you any good to save $20 on CPU, and pay an additional $40 on motherboard. It does make you look kind of dumb, but that's about it.
Now, only you can determine the weight of the factors in value, but it's good to think about them anyways, when considering new components. Is it worth an additional $20 to have a socket with more CPUs coming for it? Are you willing to pay 15% more for a 30% improvement? Do you actually need the 6 physical cores of that PhenomII when you're only planning to play games, most of which are optimized for 2?
While you're deciding on the subjective value of components, price/performance is pretty much guaranteed to come up. There's only one real way to handle that. You need direct comparison benchmarks for the task you want to do, assign the lower value 100%, and determine the percentage of the higher performer. Then, do the same with the prices of CPU and motherboard combined, and see whether the additional performance is a higher percentage than additional price. For example, if the Intel configuration is 25% better for your primary task, and costs 15% more than the AMD configuration, the Intel build is better price/performance.
Why do I say you have to combine motherboard price with the CPU price? Because, we're determining price/performance, and since they can't go in the same motherboard, the only logical way to compare is to combine all the factors that will be different, and compare price/performance that way.
Granted, motherboard can affect performance, depending on features, but most of the features that can really affect performance, like SATA 6Gb/s, or extra power phases to OC cost more. Once you're looking at adding to the price for raw performance, you should stop comparing price/performance, and just shoot for performance again.
My Gaming History
Now I know this may seem a little bit niche, but I think the development of gaming habits in a person can be fairly telling. Now to start off, I have to qualify: I gave my parents their first TV after I moved out. Any console games prior to PS2 and Xbox, I played at a friends house, and may not have finished, even if I enjoyed it.
So, lets start with the earliest video games. At my friends house when I was growing up, Rampage, Mario, Duck Hunt, and Battletoads on the NES. We played those quite a bit. I also played Sonic on my friends Game Gear, but I never really got into it. I didn't get to play Nintendo much back then, and we're talking '90-'91ish. I was damn young.
I got a little bit older, and got a game boy, along with Ninja Turtles, Fall of the Foot Clan. I played that one quite a lot, and liked it. I played Tetris, F1, Donkey Kong Land, and Super Mario Land. Super Nintendo was reasonably common at this point, and for that, I played a lot of Super Mario World, mostly.
Well, around this time, my dad had a computer, but it was a Linux box (and this was still early '90s), so the only things I could play were various old arcade games on MAME, Nethack, and Zork. Until I discovered MUD's. I was looking for games for Linux based off of Tolkien's work, and I found a game called The Burning Eye. Instantly hooked. I couldn't possibly remember all my characters, although I do remember sucking at the game at that point.
Somewhere along in there, Pokemon Red and Blue came out in the US. I got Red for my birthday, and played it a TON. Me and all my friends had it, and we did the typical young gamer nerd thing. This part of my life, I played occasional Starfox64 with a friend, Ecco the Dolphin on a borrowed Game Gear, Rampart, Zaxxon, and Rygar (I think I'm getting these names right...) for an old Atari Lynx my dad got me at a church auction. Other than that, still MUDding, and playing Nethack.
Well, as I got a bit older, I stopped sucking so bad at the MUD's, (Burning Eye had renamed to Rebirth of Arda at this point.) At this point, my game boy games of choice were Pokemon Gold, Golden Sun, and Tactics Ogre, the Knight of Lodis. I also finally had a Windows box that I bought with summer job money. I played Alien vs Predator 1 and 2, Age of Empires 2, Quake 3 Arena, Mechwarrior 2 and 3, and Tie Fighter.
Well, I slowly but surely reached 2004, still playing pretty much the same games, although less often, and went to Basic Training. Skip to 2005-2006, while I was in Iraq, I had a laptop, and went back to some old favorites, including Nethack, and some new stuff, like Galactic Civilization 2. I was on one of the better camps, with real electricity, so my Xbox and PS2 were getting love, Kingdom Hearts 2, Magna Carta Tears of Blood, Halo 1 and 2, Forza. Anything.
End of 2006-Early 2007, back Stateside, God of War 2, Tekken 5, Soul Caliber 3, but I wasn't really playing all that often, I was busy with... other pursuits. I didn't really play many games between 2007 and 2009, but in '09, I finally built myself a new PC, and was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and WoW. WoW did it's thing for a while, then I got Crysis, Killing Floor, AvP 2010, and a few other shooters to break up the WoW monotony.
Once Starcraft 2 came out, I got it, and played a bit, got sidetracked by League of Legends, smashed DA2, shelved Crysis2, and now I mostly just watch competitive SC2 when I'm not casually playing whatever.
Out of all of those, I'd say the most memorable, and my most loved, would be: The Burning Eye/Rebirth of Arda, followed by Nethack, Tie Fighter, Golden Sun, and Starcraft 2. Even though I barely play SC2, and I suck at it, I still love it. The games are fast paced, the casters are entertaining, and the community is excellent. I spend a lot of time over at Teamliquid.net, particularly on the Tech Support board there.
I hope this reminds some of you about all those oldies but goodies, the games that shaped you and your gaming tastes. It's fun to look back on it now, and try to figure out which games developed my gaming interests. I hope this wasn't too excessively long or boring, but for me, it's been a fun trip down memory lane.
So, lets start with the earliest video games. At my friends house when I was growing up, Rampage, Mario, Duck Hunt, and Battletoads on the NES. We played those quite a bit. I also played Sonic on my friends Game Gear, but I never really got into it. I didn't get to play Nintendo much back then, and we're talking '90-'91ish. I was damn young.
I got a little bit older, and got a game boy, along with Ninja Turtles, Fall of the Foot Clan. I played that one quite a lot, and liked it. I played Tetris, F1, Donkey Kong Land, and Super Mario Land. Super Nintendo was reasonably common at this point, and for that, I played a lot of Super Mario World, mostly.
Well, around this time, my dad had a computer, but it was a Linux box (and this was still early '90s), so the only things I could play were various old arcade games on MAME, Nethack, and Zork. Until I discovered MUD's. I was looking for games for Linux based off of Tolkien's work, and I found a game called The Burning Eye. Instantly hooked. I couldn't possibly remember all my characters, although I do remember sucking at the game at that point.
Somewhere along in there, Pokemon Red and Blue came out in the US. I got Red for my birthday, and played it a TON. Me and all my friends had it, and we did the typical young gamer nerd thing. This part of my life, I played occasional Starfox64 with a friend, Ecco the Dolphin on a borrowed Game Gear, Rampart, Zaxxon, and Rygar (I think I'm getting these names right...) for an old Atari Lynx my dad got me at a church auction. Other than that, still MUDding, and playing Nethack.
Well, as I got a bit older, I stopped sucking so bad at the MUD's, (Burning Eye had renamed to Rebirth of Arda at this point.) At this point, my game boy games of choice were Pokemon Gold, Golden Sun, and Tactics Ogre, the Knight of Lodis. I also finally had a Windows box that I bought with summer job money. I played Alien vs Predator 1 and 2, Age of Empires 2, Quake 3 Arena, Mechwarrior 2 and 3, and Tie Fighter.
Well, I slowly but surely reached 2004, still playing pretty much the same games, although less often, and went to Basic Training. Skip to 2005-2006, while I was in Iraq, I had a laptop, and went back to some old favorites, including Nethack, and some new stuff, like Galactic Civilization 2. I was on one of the better camps, with real electricity, so my Xbox and PS2 were getting love, Kingdom Hearts 2, Magna Carta Tears of Blood, Halo 1 and 2, Forza. Anything.
End of 2006-Early 2007, back Stateside, God of War 2, Tekken 5, Soul Caliber 3, but I wasn't really playing all that often, I was busy with... other pursuits. I didn't really play many games between 2007 and 2009, but in '09, I finally built myself a new PC, and was playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and WoW. WoW did it's thing for a while, then I got Crysis, Killing Floor, AvP 2010, and a few other shooters to break up the WoW monotony.
Once Starcraft 2 came out, I got it, and played a bit, got sidetracked by League of Legends, smashed DA2, shelved Crysis2, and now I mostly just watch competitive SC2 when I'm not casually playing whatever.
Out of all of those, I'd say the most memorable, and my most loved, would be: The Burning Eye/Rebirth of Arda, followed by Nethack, Tie Fighter, Golden Sun, and Starcraft 2. Even though I barely play SC2, and I suck at it, I still love it. The games are fast paced, the casters are entertaining, and the community is excellent. I spend a lot of time over at Teamliquid.net, particularly on the Tech Support board there.
I hope this reminds some of you about all those oldies but goodies, the games that shaped you and your gaming tastes. It's fun to look back on it now, and try to figure out which games developed my gaming interests. I hope this wasn't too excessively long or boring, but for me, it's been a fun trip down memory lane.
Customer Reviews, or, Stupidity as an Art Form.
So, we've all been there. Looking for whatever electronics or PC components online, at newegg or tigerdirect, and we see something that might fit our needs. Go to whatever search engine floats your boat, and start looking for reviews or benchmarks. Fast forward 30 minutes, for whatever reason, you couldn't find a good review or an unbiased benchmark. Why not just use customer reviews? It's rated 4 or even 5 stars, it should be good enough, right?
Of course, the correct answer to this question is hell no. Absolutely never, under any circumstances should you trust an E-tailers customer reviews on anything. Why? Well, first and foremost, statistical sampling is garbage. People are much more likely to complain than to say something positive, especially when their expectation was "function". Also, when someone does give a positive review, it's almost always going to be a very generous one, usually because they expected it to turn on, and OH MY GOD THE SHINY LIGHTS WORK!
But, you think, doesn't that mean that if it's rated high, it should be even better than the rating implies? Not really, no. Remember, most people only buy new electronics when it's an upgrade. As such, of course it feels faster, that would be the whole point of an upgrade, yes? Hell, odds are good they don't know what component actually matters anyway.
That means your best bet is to search for the people who say they're a high tech level, right? Wrong. Most technically inclined folks think a little too literally, and know that on a scale of idiot to Einstein, they're at best a 3-4/5, and won't put themselves as a 5. Anyone saying they're an expert thinks they are, and those people are much more dangerous to listen to. They're the ones with a metric asston of anecdotal evidence supporting all kinds of ridiculous stories and theories about how things work.
So, what good are the reviews? Well, they're great for figuring out how the unit is most likely to die in the event it does. That can be handy for a lot of things. They aren't any good for determining how well something works, because if someone who knew what they were doing had benched the components properly, you wouldn't be this desperate for reviews, now would you? They're also fairly good entertainment, if you're decent with the stuff, you can sit down with a beer and laugh until you cry.
In summation, e-tailer customer reviews suck.
Of course, the correct answer to this question is hell no. Absolutely never, under any circumstances should you trust an E-tailers customer reviews on anything. Why? Well, first and foremost, statistical sampling is garbage. People are much more likely to complain than to say something positive, especially when their expectation was "function". Also, when someone does give a positive review, it's almost always going to be a very generous one, usually because they expected it to turn on, and OH MY GOD THE SHINY LIGHTS WORK!
But, you think, doesn't that mean that if it's rated high, it should be even better than the rating implies? Not really, no. Remember, most people only buy new electronics when it's an upgrade. As such, of course it feels faster, that would be the whole point of an upgrade, yes? Hell, odds are good they don't know what component actually matters anyway.
That means your best bet is to search for the people who say they're a high tech level, right? Wrong. Most technically inclined folks think a little too literally, and know that on a scale of idiot to Einstein, they're at best a 3-4/5, and won't put themselves as a 5. Anyone saying they're an expert thinks they are, and those people are much more dangerous to listen to. They're the ones with a metric asston of anecdotal evidence supporting all kinds of ridiculous stories and theories about how things work.
So, what good are the reviews? Well, they're great for figuring out how the unit is most likely to die in the event it does. That can be handy for a lot of things. They aren't any good for determining how well something works, because if someone who knew what they were doing had benched the components properly, you wouldn't be this desperate for reviews, now would you? They're also fairly good entertainment, if you're decent with the stuff, you can sit down with a beer and laugh until you cry.
In summation, e-tailer customer reviews suck.
Max FPS Makes My Head Hertz
We've all seen the argument, "How many Frames per second can the human eye see?". The trouble is, while everybody seems to have a theory, nobody seems to be able to show concrete evidence to back it up. Instead of trying to convince you to agree with me based on no information, instead I'm going to discuss hardware limitations, and why they render the argument moot for most people.
If you know much about displays, you know they have a refresh rate, listed in Hertz(Hz). Hertz means cycles per second, so a 60Hz refresh rate means your display refreshes 60 times per second. In other words, no matter how many frames per second your GPU draws, only 60 can be shown on your screen. 60Hz is by far the most common refresh rate currently, although 3d capable displays and some others are capable of a 120Hz refresh rate.
Current video card drivers let you set video output rate, usually limiting you to a maximum of your display's refresh rate, but you can also lower it, which has some advantages for certain video enthusiasts. This is kind of outside the point, however. What's much more important is this: Your refresh rate is a hardware limitation on frame rate. There is no physical way to properly display a larger number of FPS. You can, however improperly display them.
Improper display will show itself in screen tearing. Essentially, your display is trying to show parts of two different frames at the same time, because it's receiving too many frames per second. This is where Vertical Sync comes into play. Vertical sync (also known as Vsync) lets you limit your rendered FPS to a fraction of your displays refresh rate. In other words, the most FPS you can get with Vsync enabled on a 60Hz display is 60 FPS.
You may be wondering, perhaps, exactly why I'm blathering on about vertical sync and refresh rates. Well, it becomes much more useful when you consider that no matter what actual frame rates the human eye is capable of differentiating, the human eye absolutely does notice sudden change. The human eye detects movement, and it is quite capable of noticing if the displayed frame rate suddenly drops from 60 to 45, which can happen quite easily with Vsync, if your rendered FPS drops below 60.
Since we don't want rendered FPS to drop below 60, some overhead in average frame rate is needed, to keep 60 as the minimum, if we're going to use Vsync. This is where excessive graphics power comes in on a display capped at 60Hz. In other words, while being able to get 90 FPS average may not make the game look any better than when it runs at 60 FPS, it does make the game look better by virtue of keeping it from making a sudden sharp dip. This is a hardware limitation. That means that any added perceived smoothness is purely a placebo effect. Your mind is playing tricks on you, plain and simple.
Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts on perceived framerate? It depends on the game, your PC, and you. If your PC has low input lag, and doesn't stutter, a fairly low framerate can look good in most cases. However, depending on the perception of speed being rendered, a higher framerate may be needed to make fast "motion" appear smooth, unless motion blur is rendered by the game.
If you know much about displays, you know they have a refresh rate, listed in Hertz(Hz). Hertz means cycles per second, so a 60Hz refresh rate means your display refreshes 60 times per second. In other words, no matter how many frames per second your GPU draws, only 60 can be shown on your screen. 60Hz is by far the most common refresh rate currently, although 3d capable displays and some others are capable of a 120Hz refresh rate.
Current video card drivers let you set video output rate, usually limiting you to a maximum of your display's refresh rate, but you can also lower it, which has some advantages for certain video enthusiasts. This is kind of outside the point, however. What's much more important is this: Your refresh rate is a hardware limitation on frame rate. There is no physical way to properly display a larger number of FPS. You can, however improperly display them.
Improper display will show itself in screen tearing. Essentially, your display is trying to show parts of two different frames at the same time, because it's receiving too many frames per second. This is where Vertical Sync comes into play. Vertical sync (also known as Vsync) lets you limit your rendered FPS to a fraction of your displays refresh rate. In other words, the most FPS you can get with Vsync enabled on a 60Hz display is 60 FPS.
You may be wondering, perhaps, exactly why I'm blathering on about vertical sync and refresh rates. Well, it becomes much more useful when you consider that no matter what actual frame rates the human eye is capable of differentiating, the human eye absolutely does notice sudden change. The human eye detects movement, and it is quite capable of noticing if the displayed frame rate suddenly drops from 60 to 45, which can happen quite easily with Vsync, if your rendered FPS drops below 60.
Since we don't want rendered FPS to drop below 60, some overhead in average frame rate is needed, to keep 60 as the minimum, if we're going to use Vsync. This is where excessive graphics power comes in on a display capped at 60Hz. In other words, while being able to get 90 FPS average may not make the game look any better than when it runs at 60 FPS, it does make the game look better by virtue of keeping it from making a sudden sharp dip. This is a hardware limitation. That means that any added perceived smoothness is purely a placebo effect. Your mind is playing tricks on you, plain and simple.
Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts on perceived framerate? It depends on the game, your PC, and you. If your PC has low input lag, and doesn't stutter, a fairly low framerate can look good in most cases. However, depending on the perception of speed being rendered, a higher framerate may be needed to make fast "motion" appear smooth, unless motion blur is rendered by the game.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Peripheral Vision: Gaming Keyboard and Mouse
This is a topic that comes up a lot in discussion, especially in the various competitive PC gaming communities. People will see Razer, TTEsports, or SteelSeries sponsoring players, and they'll look into buying the high end, fancy, and oh yeah, kind of pricey peripherals. Of course, as soon as someone asks, the guy who thinks that his budget should determine every other person's spending habits shows up. (An idiotic asshat on the internet? No!)
So, here come the arguments: Overpriced, gimmicky, doesn't matter at all, don't need extra buttons, better stuff won't make you play like a pro! Well no shit, Sherlock, you figured that out all by yourself, did you? I thought that since Nike shoes let me get up from making a Krispy Kreme shut down early for the day and run a marathon, that a Razer Abyssus would make me the best pro gamer ever!
Obviously, no, you don't need to pay more for flashy LED's, teflon mouse feet, 5600 DPI mice, and a Windows button you can turn off. But you know what else I didn't need to pay for? My whole damn PC. I could buy a netbook for browsing the internet. Hell, these days you can use your phone. So my gaming rig is a luxury purchase. And like every other luxury purchase, there's nothing wrong with spending a little bit more for features that help just a little, or look sexy.
Now, obviously, the question becomes one of value. Well, last time I checked, value is relatively subjective, particularly in the leisure time/luxury purchase department. I can't benchmark how comfortable my mouse is, and if I did, it wouldn't mean a damn thing for someone else. But if it makes my hobby a little easier, or a little more comfortable, then it's cool. If I decide I like the flashy LED's? That's my decision, and you and your notion of what I should do with my money can go to hell.
Then you hear: Higher mouse sensitivity doesn't matter. Well, yeah, it does. If you take one of those old fashioned mice with the ball underneath, and used nothing but software mouse acceleration to change how fast it moves, and give it to the best pro gamer out there, he's going to do worse. It's like handing a chainsaw to a surgeon.
So, all in all, what do I think about fancy gaming peripherals? If you can afford them, and your rig doesn't need the money dropped in more, go for it. If it makes your hobby easier or more enjoyable, that's awesome. This may seem a bit strange after the way I ripped into Water-Cooled RAM kits, but as long as you know what you're getting, who really cares what you get? You should, and nobody else.
So, here come the arguments: Overpriced, gimmicky, doesn't matter at all, don't need extra buttons, better stuff won't make you play like a pro! Well no shit, Sherlock, you figured that out all by yourself, did you? I thought that since Nike shoes let me get up from making a Krispy Kreme shut down early for the day and run a marathon, that a Razer Abyssus would make me the best pro gamer ever!
Obviously, no, you don't need to pay more for flashy LED's, teflon mouse feet, 5600 DPI mice, and a Windows button you can turn off. But you know what else I didn't need to pay for? My whole damn PC. I could buy a netbook for browsing the internet. Hell, these days you can use your phone. So my gaming rig is a luxury purchase. And like every other luxury purchase, there's nothing wrong with spending a little bit more for features that help just a little, or look sexy.
Now, obviously, the question becomes one of value. Well, last time I checked, value is relatively subjective, particularly in the leisure time/luxury purchase department. I can't benchmark how comfortable my mouse is, and if I did, it wouldn't mean a damn thing for someone else. But if it makes my hobby a little easier, or a little more comfortable, then it's cool. If I decide I like the flashy LED's? That's my decision, and you and your notion of what I should do with my money can go to hell.
Then you hear: Higher mouse sensitivity doesn't matter. Well, yeah, it does. If you take one of those old fashioned mice with the ball underneath, and used nothing but software mouse acceleration to change how fast it moves, and give it to the best pro gamer out there, he's going to do worse. It's like handing a chainsaw to a surgeon.
So, all in all, what do I think about fancy gaming peripherals? If you can afford them, and your rig doesn't need the money dropped in more, go for it. If it makes your hobby easier or more enjoyable, that's awesome. This may seem a bit strange after the way I ripped into Water-Cooled RAM kits, but as long as you know what you're getting, who really cares what you get? You should, and nobody else.
A Fool and His Money, RAM Edition.
So, generally, there's a lot of gimmicky stuff available as far as "High Performance Memory" goes. And while there are some slight benefits depending on what you're doing to tighter latencies or higher bandwidth, the real fact of the matter is that on systems that aren't pretty top-end, you could spend the extra money on something else for more performance.
Now, obviously, we have stuff like memory kits that are tested at say, 1600, 1866, 2000, or even 2133 Mhz. That's great and all, but what they fail to tell you in the big, bold, easy to read part of the text, is that... oh yeah, some memory needed to be tested at up to X voltage, which may or may not actually be safe for your CPU's Integrated Memory Controller, or your motherboard's North Bridge and Voltage Regulation.
Next up, heat sinks on RAM! Why? Because obviously, the Enthusiast pumping excess voltage through his hardware is going to make his RAM really really hot, right? Well, the funny thing is, those chips are usually rated for temperatures of something like ninety degrees Celcius. If you didn't know, that is hot as hell. Like, second or third degree burns hot as hell, no sweat. Now granted, cooler temps can help stability on RAM, yes. But really, unless you're pumping some stupid high voltages with bad airflow in your case, odds are your RAM is staying plenty cool without a heat sink.
So, all that being said, yes, some people actually are pushing systems hard enough that heat sinks make sense. I would guess that's somewhere around 8-10% of the enthusiast community, which is probably under 0.01% of people who own PCs. So, those people can buy RAM with heat sinks, and maybe even add some fans or whatever. Cool, no problem.
Now we get to the really fun part. Despite the fact that memory cooling as a needed component is already only slightly less of a niche product than Purina Pet Rock Chow, someone found another way to profit off of the masses of gamers who think that running games makes it vital to install automatic halon fire suppression systems in their rigs.
What is this amusing product? Liquid-cooled memory kits. Now I'll go ahead and credit the manufacturer, Kingston HyperX. These guys already advertise Starcraft 2 pros that they sponsor using their products as nail files and combs, but what are they going to do with this? Beer bong? What the hell, Kingston? The only use I can imagine for this is making your rig look badass with UV reactive coolant.
I think the thing that really bothers me the most is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of gamers will spend a pile on adding this stuff to their already pointless plumbing loop, either under the assumption that it will help their performance (usually, NO) or assuming that since Kingston HyperX supports E-sports, that they should buy their products.
Now I will admit, supporting sponsors is all well and good for the growth of E-Sports, if you're into competitive gaming on any front. But lets face reality. They don't put money into pro gaming teams because they really like E-Sports. They do it to engender that exact response out of you and make money. So if you don't buy the craziest products they make, it doesn't mean you're hurting E-Sports, I promise.
Now, obviously, we have stuff like memory kits that are tested at say, 1600, 1866, 2000, or even 2133 Mhz. That's great and all, but what they fail to tell you in the big, bold, easy to read part of the text, is that... oh yeah, some memory needed to be tested at up to X voltage, which may or may not actually be safe for your CPU's Integrated Memory Controller, or your motherboard's North Bridge and Voltage Regulation.
Next up, heat sinks on RAM! Why? Because obviously, the Enthusiast pumping excess voltage through his hardware is going to make his RAM really really hot, right? Well, the funny thing is, those chips are usually rated for temperatures of something like ninety degrees Celcius. If you didn't know, that is hot as hell. Like, second or third degree burns hot as hell, no sweat. Now granted, cooler temps can help stability on RAM, yes. But really, unless you're pumping some stupid high voltages with bad airflow in your case, odds are your RAM is staying plenty cool without a heat sink.
So, all that being said, yes, some people actually are pushing systems hard enough that heat sinks make sense. I would guess that's somewhere around 8-10% of the enthusiast community, which is probably under 0.01% of people who own PCs. So, those people can buy RAM with heat sinks, and maybe even add some fans or whatever. Cool, no problem.
Now we get to the really fun part. Despite the fact that memory cooling as a needed component is already only slightly less of a niche product than Purina Pet Rock Chow, someone found another way to profit off of the masses of gamers who think that running games makes it vital to install automatic halon fire suppression systems in their rigs.
What is this amusing product? Liquid-cooled memory kits. Now I'll go ahead and credit the manufacturer, Kingston HyperX. These guys already advertise Starcraft 2 pros that they sponsor using their products as nail files and combs, but what are they going to do with this? Beer bong? What the hell, Kingston? The only use I can imagine for this is making your rig look badass with UV reactive coolant.
I think the thing that really bothers me the most is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of gamers will spend a pile on adding this stuff to their already pointless plumbing loop, either under the assumption that it will help their performance (usually, NO) or assuming that since Kingston HyperX supports E-sports, that they should buy their products.
Now I will admit, supporting sponsors is all well and good for the growth of E-Sports, if you're into competitive gaming on any front. But lets face reality. They don't put money into pro gaming teams because they really like E-Sports. They do it to engender that exact response out of you and make money. So if you don't buy the craziest products they make, it doesn't mean you're hurting E-Sports, I promise.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
StarCraft 2 and RAM Speed, what you need to know
We all know that RAM clock and timings are usually not super critical for gaming. [1] [2] (Exceptions mostly including IGP performance.) However, StarCraft 2 is much more CPU dependent than a lot of games, and that stuff has to go somewhere before your display. To satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to bench some RAM clocks and timings, to see if it's worth paying a little more for low voltage memory to OC it and tighten timings.
Obviously, some of this will be CPU dependent due to recent processors having the memory controller on-die instead of using the motherboard, so don't take my results as gospel for your system.
Methodology: Replay of maxed supply vs maxed supply of Zerglings Attack-Moved towards each other on the Unit Tester custom map, using FRAPS to record framerates. All graphics
settings on low except CPU settings on Ultra and Models on high. 30 Second FRAPS bench run
with Start at the same time each test, following the replay camera.
Test Rig: i7 930 HT disabled, Turbo disabled. 6GB OCZ Reapers at listed clocks/timings
SLI GTX 460 @ 820Mhz
Memory timings to be tested: 9 9 9 30 and 6 9 6 30.
Not sure why OCZ suggests the 8 9 8 and 7 9 7, but they do, and I stuck with the
formula for CL6 and it still worked. Since 1333 CL9 is sort of "standard" for DDR3,
I'm going to call that framerate 100%, and performance for the others will also be
shown as percentage of that performance, for easier assessment.
FPS Shown in Min/Max/Average
2.8Ghz CPU Clock
1066 CL9 FPS: 28/133/61.6--95%
1066 CL6 FPS: 28/134/62.6--96.6%
1333 CL9 FPS: 30/139/64.8--100%
1333 CL6 FPS: 30/139/65.2--100.6%
1600 CL9 FPS: 31/142/67.2--103.7%
1600 CL6 FPS: 31/142/67.3--103.8%
For giggles, the same test with my normal OC @3.8Ghz w/ 3600 Uncore.
1600 CL6 FPS: 50/193/95.1--146.7%
Conclusion: SC2 pretty much couldn't care less what your timings are. Clock speed, on the other hand, makes a few percent difference in the thick of the action, and those couple of frames minimum can be a big difference when they're fairly low like the high supply situations. Minimum framerate can be what really counts, since that's where you suffer the most, and in the thick of the fight, the average definitely seems to benefit from faster RAM.
Since DDR3 1333 CL9 tends to run ~$8 US/GB or less (for the rationally priced stuff), I'd say if you can keep it to ~$2 over that to get some low voltage RAM, or better binned memory tested at 1600Mhz, it might be worth the step up.
Aside from that, you're still looking better off with a healthy overclock on your CPU than you are with faster memory. If you're looking at any more than a few dollars premium, you'd do better to spend the money on a faster CPU, or a better mobo and cooler to OC with.
Obviously, this is for the people who care about price/performance in the slightest. If you happen to have a license for 3DMark, if your desktop has more benchmark utilities than games, obviously you don't care much anyways, because you'll get something, anything, out of it. So it's worth it. But if you can only raise the clock or tighten the timings, but not both... for SC2, at least, the answer is clear.
Obviously, some of this will be CPU dependent due to recent processors having the memory controller on-die instead of using the motherboard, so don't take my results as gospel for your system.
Methodology: Replay of maxed supply vs maxed supply of Zerglings Attack-Moved towards each other on the Unit Tester custom map, using FRAPS to record framerates. All graphics
settings on low except CPU settings on Ultra and Models on high. 30 Second FRAPS bench run
with Start at the same time each test, following the replay camera.
Test Rig: i7 930 HT disabled, Turbo disabled. 6GB OCZ Reapers at listed clocks/timings
SLI GTX 460 @ 820Mhz
Memory timings to be tested: 9 9 9 30 and 6 9 6 30.
Not sure why OCZ suggests the 8 9 8 and 7 9 7, but they do, and I stuck with the
formula for CL6 and it still worked. Since 1333 CL9 is sort of "standard" for DDR3,
I'm going to call that framerate 100%, and performance for the others will also be
shown as percentage of that performance, for easier assessment.
FPS Shown in Min/Max/Average
2.8Ghz CPU Clock
1066 CL9 FPS: 28/133/61.6--95%
1066 CL6 FPS: 28/134/62.6--96.6%
1333 CL9 FPS: 30/139/64.8--100%
1333 CL6 FPS: 30/139/65.2--100.6%
1600 CL9 FPS: 31/142/67.2--103.7%
1600 CL6 FPS: 31/142/67.3--103.8%
For giggles, the same test with my normal OC @3.8Ghz w/ 3600 Uncore.
1600 CL6 FPS: 50/193/95.1--146.7%
Conclusion: SC2 pretty much couldn't care less what your timings are. Clock speed, on the other hand, makes a few percent difference in the thick of the action, and those couple of frames minimum can be a big difference when they're fairly low like the high supply situations. Minimum framerate can be what really counts, since that's where you suffer the most, and in the thick of the fight, the average definitely seems to benefit from faster RAM.
Since DDR3 1333 CL9 tends to run ~$8 US/GB or less (for the rationally priced stuff), I'd say if you can keep it to ~$2 over that to get some low voltage RAM, or better binned memory tested at 1600Mhz, it might be worth the step up.
Aside from that, you're still looking better off with a healthy overclock on your CPU than you are with faster memory. If you're looking at any more than a few dollars premium, you'd do better to spend the money on a faster CPU, or a better mobo and cooler to OC with.
Obviously, this is for the people who care about price/performance in the slightest. If you happen to have a license for 3DMark, if your desktop has more benchmark utilities than games, obviously you don't care much anyways, because you'll get something, anything, out of it. So it's worth it. But if you can only raise the clock or tighten the timings, but not both... for SC2, at least, the answer is clear.
Enthusiast PC Parts and You.
Today, I thought I'd write on a topic that often gets glossed over. We all know that "enthusiast" PC components tend to involve premiums for insignificant gains, factory OC's, and branding. As such, I thought I'd write something informative on the topic.
First things first, I'm going to give you the two rules of enthusiast components.
1: Make an informed decision.
2: If you have to ask if it's a good idea, you should do a lot more research before paying more for it.
Multi-GPU Configurations
This is something that I think lots of people don't understand, and it's kind of stigmatized beyond it's issues at this point.
1: False Savings. Unless you use a dual-GPU single-PCB card (which isn't a savings by any stretch), you have to buy a better motherboard. No matter how you package the GPU's, you need better cooling and more PSU. In the case of two mid-range GPU's to top the performance of a single GPU, this will end up making it cost more, and be more of a pain to work with.
2: Driver issues and scaling. The scaling is dramatically improved in recent years, with games with decent SLI/CrossfireX support easily hitting 180%+ of a single card solution. The fact is, though, the scaling is variable, especially due to driver issues. Remember, if you buy a new release, the drivers may not work well with it day one. In that case, the driver problems will scale much faster than the GPU's, causing shit framerates compared to a single better card.
3: Tinkering. Some people see this as a feature, I'm one of them. I love tinkering endlessly with things to try and squeeze barely noticeable improvements out of my system. If you do, multi-GPU is awesome. Custom profiles tend to be the best way to get results, and this can give you hours benching a particular game and tweaking things trying to get 1-2 more FPS.
4: Noise. The increased heat from multiple cards and less airflow comes with another drawback. GPU fans get really really loud if they get loaded heavily, particularly if there's insufficient airflow, which tends to be the case with multiple dual-slot cards jammed close together on a motherboard.
You'll notice I haven't given any real definitive reason not to SLI/Crossfire? That's because it isn't objectively bad. It's objectively more work, hotter, noisier, and more power consuming, but if those things are worth it to you personally, that's perfectly fine.
Enthusiast Motherboards
For the sake of this discussion, I'm not just talking about the ability to overclock. When I say enthusiast motherboard, we're talking about feature-loaded. Tons of extra USB3 and SATA 6Gb/s, BIOS loaded with extra features, heavy chipset cooling, multiple PCI-e x16 slots for SLI/Crossfire.
Obviously, the motherboard is important. You don't want a junk one if you plan to overclock. But you can overclock without paying for features you don't need. If you aren't planning to go multi-GPU, don't pay extra for more PCI-e than you need. If you aren't going to use 6Gb SATA, don't pay for it. You don't need it for HDD's, so unless you're looking at SSD's, you can avoid getting a lot of the ports.
Good chipset and VREG cooling is handy if you plan to do a heavy OC, but for lower OC's, pretty much any board built to OC will be fine on cooling.
RAM
This is one of the big ones. You can easily pay 2-3x more for memory that gives, best case, 4-5% better performance. Given that that money could go into more CPU or GPU for bigger gains, that doesn't make sense unless those are already top end.
Getting memory working properly at better timings than CL7, or faster clock than 1600Mhz can be pretty involved, and due to weird voltage dependencies, even those numbers can be tricky, depending on your CPU clock. And again, you aren't seeing huge gains from it. if you really want to OC your memory, get a low voltage kit, not one that's been tested at higher clocks. The low voltage will let you OC the memory yourself, and they usually don't mention that above a certain clock in their testing, they were running higher VDIMM, sometimes unhealthily so.
Heat spreaders on RAM are pure gimmick factor. Servers and high end workstations don't tend to have them, why should your gaming rig? Unless you're being downright abusive, given that those chips are usually rated in the 90C range, the odds of your memory melting before your CPU or VREG are slim to none. The main two things heatsinks on memory do is block CPU coolers and look pretty. Actually, let's broaden that to all memory cooling.
Factory OC GPU's
Unless you're the epitome of lazy, these are almost always nothing but wasted money, the exception being certain cards where the only way to get certain non-reference cooling is to buy the factory OC. Overclocking a GPU is done through software with a GUI in the OS, takes little to no time, and you can find what should be stable numbers by looking at what the factory OC's run at. Not much else on this one.
Cooling
Here's the thing. If your PC was intended to have plumbing, the case would come with Drano and a plunger. It doesn't, so keep it where it belongs. The biggest problem with liquid cooling (ignoring the fact that it still bottoms out at ambient temperature, just like air), is the fact that if it dies, your PC isn't going to run until you fix it. Yous CPU can't work with no cooling, and a liquid cooler with no liquid is no cooling. A heatsink loses a fan, well, all you have to do is drop your OC down for a while and run it passive until you can get a new fan.
Spending extra money on thermal paste is downright insane for 99.99% of users. Why? Because, paying an extra $10 for 2-3C cooler at best doesn't make any sense when you could pay an extra $10 for a better aftermarket heatsink than you originally planned to get and lower temps more, or more quietly. Thermal paste will almost never be the key to making your temps comfortable for long term use, especially if you aren't shooting for records.
First things first, I'm going to give you the two rules of enthusiast components.
1: Make an informed decision.
2: If you have to ask if it's a good idea, you should do a lot more research before paying more for it.
Multi-GPU Configurations
This is something that I think lots of people don't understand, and it's kind of stigmatized beyond it's issues at this point.
1: False Savings. Unless you use a dual-GPU single-PCB card (which isn't a savings by any stretch), you have to buy a better motherboard. No matter how you package the GPU's, you need better cooling and more PSU. In the case of two mid-range GPU's to top the performance of a single GPU, this will end up making it cost more, and be more of a pain to work with.
2: Driver issues and scaling. The scaling is dramatically improved in recent years, with games with decent SLI/CrossfireX support easily hitting 180%+ of a single card solution. The fact is, though, the scaling is variable, especially due to driver issues. Remember, if you buy a new release, the drivers may not work well with it day one. In that case, the driver problems will scale much faster than the GPU's, causing shit framerates compared to a single better card.
3: Tinkering. Some people see this as a feature, I'm one of them. I love tinkering endlessly with things to try and squeeze barely noticeable improvements out of my system. If you do, multi-GPU is awesome. Custom profiles tend to be the best way to get results, and this can give you hours benching a particular game and tweaking things trying to get 1-2 more FPS.
4: Noise. The increased heat from multiple cards and less airflow comes with another drawback. GPU fans get really really loud if they get loaded heavily, particularly if there's insufficient airflow, which tends to be the case with multiple dual-slot cards jammed close together on a motherboard.
You'll notice I haven't given any real definitive reason not to SLI/Crossfire? That's because it isn't objectively bad. It's objectively more work, hotter, noisier, and more power consuming, but if those things are worth it to you personally, that's perfectly fine.
Enthusiast Motherboards
For the sake of this discussion, I'm not just talking about the ability to overclock. When I say enthusiast motherboard, we're talking about feature-loaded. Tons of extra USB3 and SATA 6Gb/s, BIOS loaded with extra features, heavy chipset cooling, multiple PCI-e x16 slots for SLI/Crossfire.
Obviously, the motherboard is important. You don't want a junk one if you plan to overclock. But you can overclock without paying for features you don't need. If you aren't planning to go multi-GPU, don't pay extra for more PCI-e than you need. If you aren't going to use 6Gb SATA, don't pay for it. You don't need it for HDD's, so unless you're looking at SSD's, you can avoid getting a lot of the ports.
Good chipset and VREG cooling is handy if you plan to do a heavy OC, but for lower OC's, pretty much any board built to OC will be fine on cooling.
RAM
This is one of the big ones. You can easily pay 2-3x more for memory that gives, best case, 4-5% better performance. Given that that money could go into more CPU or GPU for bigger gains, that doesn't make sense unless those are already top end.
Getting memory working properly at better timings than CL7, or faster clock than 1600Mhz can be pretty involved, and due to weird voltage dependencies, even those numbers can be tricky, depending on your CPU clock. And again, you aren't seeing huge gains from it. if you really want to OC your memory, get a low voltage kit, not one that's been tested at higher clocks. The low voltage will let you OC the memory yourself, and they usually don't mention that above a certain clock in their testing, they were running higher VDIMM, sometimes unhealthily so.
Heat spreaders on RAM are pure gimmick factor. Servers and high end workstations don't tend to have them, why should your gaming rig? Unless you're being downright abusive, given that those chips are usually rated in the 90C range, the odds of your memory melting before your CPU or VREG are slim to none. The main two things heatsinks on memory do is block CPU coolers and look pretty. Actually, let's broaden that to all memory cooling.
Factory OC GPU's
Unless you're the epitome of lazy, these are almost always nothing but wasted money, the exception being certain cards where the only way to get certain non-reference cooling is to buy the factory OC. Overclocking a GPU is done through software with a GUI in the OS, takes little to no time, and you can find what should be stable numbers by looking at what the factory OC's run at. Not much else on this one.
Cooling
Here's the thing. If your PC was intended to have plumbing, the case would come with Drano and a plunger. It doesn't, so keep it where it belongs. The biggest problem with liquid cooling (ignoring the fact that it still bottoms out at ambient temperature, just like air), is the fact that if it dies, your PC isn't going to run until you fix it. Yous CPU can't work with no cooling, and a liquid cooler with no liquid is no cooling. A heatsink loses a fan, well, all you have to do is drop your OC down for a while and run it passive until you can get a new fan.
Spending extra money on thermal paste is downright insane for 99.99% of users. Why? Because, paying an extra $10 for 2-3C cooler at best doesn't make any sense when you could pay an extra $10 for a better aftermarket heatsink than you originally planned to get and lower temps more, or more quietly. Thermal paste will almost never be the key to making your temps comfortable for long term use, especially if you aren't shooting for records.
Transparency in Tech Reviews, and How to Read Between the Lines.
Semi-Ranting Part
It irks me these days. Any time someone asks about a specific computer part, if I can't find it on one of my tried and trued websites, I groan a little inside. There's multiple ways a benchmark can be bad, and the worst is a vague review to make a mediocre or bad product look good.
Why do I hate these worse than bias? Well, frankly, because bias is usually pretty easy to spot. A site or reviewer that looks desperately for a way to make something look better than it's competitors is fairly obvious, since direct comparison is required. Any time there's direct comparison, you can apply a little bit of critical thinking and elementary math to see the discrepancy for yourself.
The problem with a vague review is that some people do accurate vague reviews, and some people use a vague review to obfuscate a desire to continue getting free stuff by finding a way to make the facts look better. Now an accurate vague review, while frustrating, can at least be useful, for finding potential issues that will let you make an informed decision on something. When I was looking into purchasing the Antec Lanboy Air case, I ran into several of these. While it drove me completely insane to not see much information on the thermal and acoustics of the case, those weren't my main concern. I was worried about build quality, since the case is a veritable treasure trove of gimmicks.
Unfortunately, you aren't always trying to find stuff that a vague review will provide well, and when this happens, it can be downright annoying. By nature, a vague review or benchmark is never transparent. There won't be enough comparison, or the testing methodology will either be vague, variable, or just downright not discussed. When this happens, you'll be stuck looking at a chart, scratching your head, and trying to make an educated guess.
The problem, of course, is that a lot of "reviewers" think that the way to keep getting free or discounted stuff to review is to find a way to make the stuff look good. But if nobody reads your reviews, and nobody links to it, are you really doing yourself or the manufacturers a favor? No, of course not. You're just making yourself look like an idiot. If you aren't going to compare something to a proper baseline, you might as well not benchmark or review it at all.
Now obviously, the odds of any of the people I'm complaining about reading this are slim to none, so what value does this have? None, really, aside from possibly educating people about how to properly use several vague reviews to get more data than people were trying to give out.
Educational Part
So, here's to the tips. If you can't find a half-decent review of a product, but do find 3-4... shall we say less than useful ones, there's ways to drag the hidden information out of them.
1: Look for common compliments. Certain words, like innovative, really just mean "non-standard", which also frequently means "we couldn't stop swearing at it". If there's no good pictures of whatever is "innovative" you know it's a damn nuisance. "Lots of fans" or "Amazing airflow" mean "Poor mans surround sound for the movie Twister." Get the idea?
2: Look At Picture Angles. If the pictures avoid certain angles like the plague, look at what you aren't able to see. No picture behind the motherboard tray? Cable management blows. No picture of the Hard Drive bays? Good chance they might be either noisy or inconvenient. Anything they don't want to give you pictures of from a rational angle is either inconvenient or badly engineered.
3: Look for what isn't mentioned. This one only works if you read a decent number of good reviews as well. Anything that normally gets discussed in a good review that doesn't in a vague review is probably an issue. Good examples would be acoustics or thermals on a GPU, cable management or HDD mounting in a case, noise quality or OC'ed performance on a CPU cooler.
Basically, it's all about reading between the lines and having a base knowledge of what sort of things a review or benchmark should have for a given component. If you find a site that does good reviews, bookmark them. Use their search feature. And don't just throw away a vague review. Find several of them, keep them open in tabs next to each other, and apply these tests to all of them at once. If the hidden stuff is consistent, you know that it's not an oversight, and you can extrapolate what's wrong with the product.
It irks me these days. Any time someone asks about a specific computer part, if I can't find it on one of my tried and trued websites, I groan a little inside. There's multiple ways a benchmark can be bad, and the worst is a vague review to make a mediocre or bad product look good.
Why do I hate these worse than bias? Well, frankly, because bias is usually pretty easy to spot. A site or reviewer that looks desperately for a way to make something look better than it's competitors is fairly obvious, since direct comparison is required. Any time there's direct comparison, you can apply a little bit of critical thinking and elementary math to see the discrepancy for yourself.
The problem with a vague review is that some people do accurate vague reviews, and some people use a vague review to obfuscate a desire to continue getting free stuff by finding a way to make the facts look better. Now an accurate vague review, while frustrating, can at least be useful, for finding potential issues that will let you make an informed decision on something. When I was looking into purchasing the Antec Lanboy Air case, I ran into several of these. While it drove me completely insane to not see much information on the thermal and acoustics of the case, those weren't my main concern. I was worried about build quality, since the case is a veritable treasure trove of gimmicks.
Unfortunately, you aren't always trying to find stuff that a vague review will provide well, and when this happens, it can be downright annoying. By nature, a vague review or benchmark is never transparent. There won't be enough comparison, or the testing methodology will either be vague, variable, or just downright not discussed. When this happens, you'll be stuck looking at a chart, scratching your head, and trying to make an educated guess.
The problem, of course, is that a lot of "reviewers" think that the way to keep getting free or discounted stuff to review is to find a way to make the stuff look good. But if nobody reads your reviews, and nobody links to it, are you really doing yourself or the manufacturers a favor? No, of course not. You're just making yourself look like an idiot. If you aren't going to compare something to a proper baseline, you might as well not benchmark or review it at all.
Now obviously, the odds of any of the people I'm complaining about reading this are slim to none, so what value does this have? None, really, aside from possibly educating people about how to properly use several vague reviews to get more data than people were trying to give out.
Educational Part
So, here's to the tips. If you can't find a half-decent review of a product, but do find 3-4... shall we say less than useful ones, there's ways to drag the hidden information out of them.
1: Look for common compliments. Certain words, like innovative, really just mean "non-standard", which also frequently means "we couldn't stop swearing at it". If there's no good pictures of whatever is "innovative" you know it's a damn nuisance. "Lots of fans" or "Amazing airflow" mean "Poor mans surround sound for the movie Twister." Get the idea?
2: Look At Picture Angles. If the pictures avoid certain angles like the plague, look at what you aren't able to see. No picture behind the motherboard tray? Cable management blows. No picture of the Hard Drive bays? Good chance they might be either noisy or inconvenient. Anything they don't want to give you pictures of from a rational angle is either inconvenient or badly engineered.
3: Look for what isn't mentioned. This one only works if you read a decent number of good reviews as well. Anything that normally gets discussed in a good review that doesn't in a vague review is probably an issue. Good examples would be acoustics or thermals on a GPU, cable management or HDD mounting in a case, noise quality or OC'ed performance on a CPU cooler.
Basically, it's all about reading between the lines and having a base knowledge of what sort of things a review or benchmark should have for a given component. If you find a site that does good reviews, bookmark them. Use their search feature. And don't just throw away a vague review. Find several of them, keep them open in tabs next to each other, and apply these tests to all of them at once. If the hidden stuff is consistent, you know that it's not an oversight, and you can extrapolate what's wrong with the product.
For Starters
So, I'm a little deranged, kind of arrogant, a bit of an ass, and love computers and gaming. I'm all for crazy high graphics, synthetic benchmarks, overclocking, and generally doing stuff that sounds really impressive to the uninitiated.
Really, though, none of it is as impressive as it sounds, and at least until you're looking to set records, a lot of it is much easier than you'd expect. As it turns out, you don't need to understand some crazy alphabet soup, or install plumbing in your PC, just to get decent performance out of it.
The real truth of it, despite what the people trying to take your money at Best Buy try to tell you, is that computers don't require some crazy Tibetan monastic lifestyle to understand. So, now that we're on the same page with all that, I guess I'm done with this first bit. I'll be following up with some bits and pieces I've done elsewhere.
Really, though, none of it is as impressive as it sounds, and at least until you're looking to set records, a lot of it is much easier than you'd expect. As it turns out, you don't need to understand some crazy alphabet soup, or install plumbing in your PC, just to get decent performance out of it.
The real truth of it, despite what the people trying to take your money at Best Buy try to tell you, is that computers don't require some crazy Tibetan monastic lifestyle to understand. So, now that we're on the same page with all that, I guess I'm done with this first bit. I'll be following up with some bits and pieces I've done elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)