Jump to content

Thinder

Members
  • Posts

    1413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thinder

  1. First of all Merry Christmass! I am now the happy owner of the F-86F and started to train on it but have been unable to finish the landing mission. The "Follow me" car contact me when I get close but only honk twice before turning its lights off, then doesn't move anywhere. From then on, because the light is too dim in VR, I find it impossible to locate the right parking area, if I knew where it was it could work but I am not sure I can finish the mission like the other ones, for the time being, I park next to the first Sabre I find and turn the power out. Anyone experienced the same issue and does anyone have a solution? Thanks in Advance!
  2. Already done multiple times... The last were a video from Ate (Ex-MN Rafale pilot) interviewing a Mirage F1 pilot, some explanation on how a F1 couldn't out turn most contemporary aircraft on the basis of its wing loading with those of the Mig-21 BIS, F-4 and F-105 to compare, what is needed for good turn rates, and so on, as I said DONE, only to get the same reply... It's not with me they should discuss those issues, I'm using my right to complain as a paying customer here, but apparently it is too difficult to get in touch with an AdlA Squadron, Dassault-Aviation or simply get in touch with the pilots Ate have interviewed??? As for my sources, I have explained clearly that I was unable to disclose them, their role with AdlA are not of public relation but active Squadron and as such, I wasn't given any details and if I had I wouldn't disclose them, as I said I served with AdlA and I know the drill, for demo pilots and those interviewed by Ate it's a different matter. >>>> Great. now wee have players who take their fantasy for reality, sorry, if a French Mirage F1 pilot says it's NOT a dogfighter, if the laws of physics and aerodynamics proves it, then I know which video to take seriously, and I also know that this module flight envelop is certainly not that of the real aircraft. Now we know why we learn aerodynamics in flying schools, along with flight dynamics, flight mechanics, MTO, Nav etc, when you know the minimum you can tell the difference between blah blah and reality (or performance charts and flight envelop).
  3. Perhaps if you weren't so prompt to dismiss what people are saying you wouldn't have this problem, I was the first to congratulate your team for the excellence of the work done (modellism, mapping, as a 3D CGI techie I can appreciate that) but I highlighted those issues only to see the very same reply than today. Your post about the aircraft turn rates just highlight what your collective problem is, you have no clue what its aerodynamics are about, if you based the flight envelop of this module on the assumption you made about how it can out-turn contemporary aircraft and/or other DCS modules, no wonder you got it plain wrong first time. So let me help you with some basics: For a good turn rate at equal temperature (air density) you need 1) low wing loading. 2) high lift coefficient. 3) high maximum structural limit (G). Using common sense being a good start, does the Mirage F1 check on with 1) 2) or 3)? Answer for 1) AND 2) is NO. And that's valid for 2) despite the flaps and slats. That's for instantaneous turn rate, if you want to compute sustained turn rate you add Drag Coefficient vs Thrust. Now I don't know if you even bothered studying the aircraft history, visited the Dassault-Aviation Website but it is pretty obvious that the aircraft was conceived as an interceptor not a dogfighter, and that they figured early enough that to meet their goals for lower landing speed they also had to increase AoA and needed to fit those ventral fins to it. So when one flies this module and find oneself unable to prevent an oscillation in Yaw at AoA where they shouldn't happen, it looks like you assumed that Dassault didn't know what they were doing and that the aerodynamic damping provided by the ventral fins doesn't work, and I forgot to mention the fact that they fitted a trim so unresponsive it leads to trim hunting at every change of speed. I passed on all those information to you and your team long ago, how you manage to complain that a paying customer is not reacting positively to your commercial rhetoric on how it have been validated is striking, I know perfectly how difficult it is to get a flight envelop close to the real thing but before you start to sell it as "validated" you might want to inform yourself properly. Now, you guys have the module, IF it have been modeled properly, you can find every tool FREE online to check on its aerodynamics, just visit the student section of Dassault-Systems, they have free modeling and fluid dynamic tools I used long ago for a dimension accurate wing of the F-100, including wing profile courtesy of DRYDEN, except I used CATIA and FLUENT, my tip make your model water tight. That's clarification, for you... Assumption is the mother of all you know what, good to know you ignore my posts I'll do without groupies. Cheers. >>> Other seems to assume that I don't know that the aircraft needs to be flown with the rudder at high AoA, and that's not 40°, that's the first thing you learn in a flight school (1975), with stall, to prepare you for flaring the aircraft for landing. What I am saying and always have said is that the adverse Yaw coming from the use of the spoilers at approach AoA is greatly exaggerated with this module and we won't mention trim hunting... I rest my case, they're going to ignore my info and complain again... Good practice.
  4. Do you know what the Mirage F1 wing surface is? That of a Mirage III? That of a Mirage 2000? I was at the Bourget Airshow when the F1-M53 got spanked by the YF-16, and I know for a FACT that it is a rocket, flying very fast and accelerating very well too but certainly not a turning fight aircraft. I'm curious to know at which point of its flight envelop the F1 will beat the laws of Aerodynamics with 25m2 of wing surface, that's 20m2 less than the Mirage III, the top gunner I knew well who I mentioned earlier flew the Mig-21 at Reims in 1973 (Yep, Normandie-Niemen privilege) just a couple of years before I started training with him. He was rather complementary about the Mig, the only thing he did not like was the limited G allowance for the HUD gunshight which prevented the pilot to fire passed a given AOA, to make matter worse, the ballistics of the 23mm were also inferior to that of the DEFA 30mm. Now of course the engine thrust plays a role in the final equation but the Mirage III had the reputation of a Mig Killer for some very good reasons, especially in the hands of IAF pilots. So putting Mig-21 and Mirage III side to side with similar performances, including turning rates, I wonder where you'll fit the F1 in to that? To give you a clue: Clean with fuel and pilot, it has 448kg/m2 wing loading and if you doubt it, ask this gentleman. "448kg/m2 is really enormous!", "NOT a dogfight aircraft". Computed on their gross weight: Mig-21 Bis = 380kg/m2. On 50% internal fuel, your Mirage F1 barely reaches this value at 380.8kg/m2. F-4 = 382.60kg/m2 F-105 = 451.53kg/m2
  5. Hilarious to mention vague statements when we're served with those on a regular basis in the form of " has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" to justify unfinished flight envelops of this module. If a proper flight envelop had been done first time it wouldn't have need revision after revision. Then there is one public source for AdlA Squadrons even if I contacted one particular Squadron, the reply comes from a pool, and pilots are protected by anonymity, I served in AdlA at BA-102 Dijon and know the drill, if I knew them personally I wouldn't disclose their identity, I have my sources and they are reliable. Then asking for specifics angle of attacks? Are you kidding? Which "multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" have validated a range of AoA used for landing and unresponsive trim for this module I wonder... I mentioned those issues from the first time I flew it and the answer haven't changed yet. I understand "pointu, qui se pilote au palonnier" because I flew light aircraft when the vast majority of you weren't even born and guess what, I had the head of the flight test center of Bretigny as instructor, I think I picked up a few things from him and other advanced pilots, I don't need pseudo-lectures from anyone here... No need to be so specific, the module behavior is not on par with that of the real aircraft in this region of its flight envelop, despite what we're told repeatedly, if you want specifics, there is no damping in the YAW axis which is not how the aircraft behave, it is sensitive but controllable. Have you ever saw a Mirage F1 pointing its nose from one side to the other at those AoA in thousand of video hours or eared of trim issues? Me neither, as if Dassault-Aviation didn't do their home work, for that matter before the release of the first serie aircraft they sorted them by adding ventral fins precisely to make sure it wouldn't happen at high AoA, and we all know what this range is, it is marked in the indicator. So unless Devs accept that they still have some work to do wont be taking the usual explanation seriously and Aerges better take the matter seriously if they want to retain some credibility, it cost little to say "it's not perfect but we're making progresses" and keep working at it, a proper research work would be a good start. And something else Dustband, 1) You're not "everybody", 2) you're projecting by talking about waste of time, 3) People asking question are right to do so and if you don't like it, change career and do politics.. Don't bother replying. You can play the victim all you want and keep taking the mickey with your usual reply, if I want to know something about the aircraft, I know where to ask which is what I did and it's evidence enough for me. My tip: Follow RAZBAM example and get in touch with Dassault-Aviation or AdlA, or even better, do some home work and contact one of the F1 test pilots, I'm sure some of them are still alive and can be find in Facebook or elsewhere. LOL! Now I'm sure one genius is gonna imply that I fly this module out of its flight envelop... We never know.
  6. Cut the BS. I spoke with AdlA Squadron members which were flying the Mirage F1, if the aircraft is said to be "pointu" at high AoA and demands to be flown with the rudder which is counter-intuitive when trying to counter excessive yaw instability, it's nowhere near as unstable in Yaw and its trim is responsive, no trim hunting there. So this "validated" argument is dumb, and if anyone wants to know what this module should really fly like, they can ask for themselves.
  7. When can we expect to see it introduced in DCS?
  8. PSU no longer available, my apologies to those who contacted me for nothing, the taker agreed to my terms but I received his email way before I checked it. Fly safe.
  9. I have two; trim not responsive enough (time lag) and excessive instability in the yaw axis, to make sure, I contacted some French Squadron which flew the F1, the Web Master, to inquire about those issues and they came back to me: The F1 is a tricky airplane to fly at high AoA but nothing like constant Yaw movements and there is no issues with the trim. No argument there, they flew it from the moment it was available.
  10. It's easy to install and use, you need a one life time license, a few quids. I can map every single button except wheel slider on my throttle (!?!), there are 4 different emulation functions per key plus Special Key Codes, Keyboard Multi, Mouse and Mouse advanced, lots of ways to map your combo, then you can save your profiles. I tried Thrusmaster own package but reverted to this one, I find it to be better except for the TWCS throttle wheel, also calibration is easy (basically the same than Windows) and stable.
  11. I use this: Joytokey Once calibrated it's rather stable but I have had Trim issues mainly due to DCS settings, and it depends on the module itself. With the Mirage F1 it's basically fcuked up, you spend more time chasing the trim than flying the aircraft at every little speed change and developers try to tell us that it's the same with the real aircraft, I exchanged emails with French AdlA members, this is not the case. I use my Warthog in Elite Dangerous as well, never had any issues, the only little problems I find with it is that it is stiff as hell and I'm pleased to have it mounted on a clamp which keeps my fore harm level, not standing on my desk, and once screwed tight on its basis, there still is some degree of rotation play, it's not what one could expect from a product of this quality... What you describe sounds like a bug or a broken lua line, you should try contacting support and send them your log files...
  12. I did already: The 3200MHz can easily be O.Ced but my personal choice was not to O.C my RAM, the 3600MHz kit was available, I had the budget to change kit (again, 32GB 3200MHz, 64GB 3600MHz, 32GB 3600MHz all tested back to back). I have to specify one thing, the loss one can experience with using the wrong combination of RAM with a Ryzen, is different between the X3D and non X3D CPUs, due to the way cache uses low latency that other "standard" Ryzen doesn't, it was explained clearly by AMD at the launch of the 5800X 3D, the goal of adding a cache was lower latency. What it does, it shortens the time the CPU needs to access data, add to that the lower latency provided by a Cl14 BDie kit and the difference is showing, so if you call the recovery of data loss a gain, the gain of using a Cl14 kit will be lower for a non X3D CPU although it is already important overall it translates differently. From Crucial Cl16 to GSkill Cl14 3200MHz both 32GB. CPU is a 5600X From 5600X to 5800X 3D. As you can see for yourself, tests after tests have demonstrated gains but the most important step was achieved with the addition of the cache with the 5800X 3D, a gain of 18.91% in graphic score shows how the CPU keeping the GPU channel open helps with those scores. ALL at 4K 2 X MSAA. In short, best bounding possible for this particular CPU affecting the GPU performances as well, in the case of simply going from a Cl16 to a Cl14 with a non 3D CPU gain is only 1.33% in Graphic Score but the CPU gains 6.04% (Physics Score). I recommend it in the frame of your remark on cost, if you have the budget and dont want to OC your 3200MHz, go for the 3600MHz kit, but be aware, 3600MHz is the limit of what a Ryzen will take. For the gains see Slide 1 to which you can add the recovery of losses due to the number of ranks if you swap from a 64GB kit. I deleted the last slide (third) which is irrelevant to the topic... Depending on your Motherboard BIOS, it can ID it and you won't have to even set the frequencies up or you will have to go to BIOS and set them manually, I had both cases since I changed Motherboard twice since the B450/5600X combo. If you follow tutorials and user guide instructions it is pretty easy to do, those are standard RAM and timings, make sure your Motherboard and BIOS supports them.
  13. From what MSI are saying (and they don't talk about GSkill or Corsair but BDie kits), there are no 16GB sticks possessing 1 rank, I had one such a kit, G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 64GB (4 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14Q-64GTZRA tested back to back with the one I have now, G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14Q-32GTZRA it loses <> 31% at 4K 2 X MSAA in 3DMark Pro Firestrike. With a Ryzen designed for low latency, especially the 5800X 3D with its cache, there is no advantage whatsoever in bounding a 64GB kit to those CPUs. About the price, just to say "Do what I say not what I do"... The 3200MHz kit will OC to 3600MHz no problem, this will help cut cost, I tested all 3 kits, the 3200MHz was excellent but I elected not to O.C my RAM, it is just a matter of personal choice. G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR
  14. For a start, you're losing in performances with a RAM kit working out of your CPU Controller limits, it throttle down under load, tested back to back the difference with mine was <> 31% at 4K, you don't notice that when not under load. With BDie. only the 8GB sticks posses 1 rank, your Controller is limited to 4 x 1 ranks, so the result is a loss of about 30%+ under load, meaning higher latency, lower bus bandwidth for both RAM and GPU. No matter what you do as settings this bottleneck is there to stay until you limit the number of ranks and bring it back to a value your CPU Controller can manage. The values you see and call overhead are the maximum your gear could reach in best conditions probably not what your CPU Controller delivers. The Specs of your CPU are: System Memory SpecificationUp to 3200MHz AMD assume that you will not use a BDie kit and give the lowest frequency value, valid for example with a Cl16 kit For 3600MHz, that's with a BDie Kit working at Cl14 4 X 1 rank maximum, I even wonder how you managed to have your BIOS taking the 3600MHz setting but it depends on Motherboard manufacturers, some will let you set it at 3600MHz with 8 ranks some won't, in any case the result will be the same, your settings will show the maxi, the Controller decide if yes or no it delivers and when it can. The DDR4 Ryzen have the same controller in common, your 5900X works the same way than mine, the only difference is a higher clocking and no cache, but it is designed for lower latency like all recent DDR4 Ryzen, their controller limits ARE 3200MHz with "high street" RAM (non BDie/Cl14), 3600MHz with Cl14 kits, maximum of 4 ranks either 2 X 2 or 4 X 1. The ultimate configuration for them is a 4 X 1 Cl14 kit providing your CPU with interleaving, meaning your Controller can manage data between all 4 sticks. My opinion, I would swap this kit for a 32GB, you won't lose but gain in performances because for the same frequency, your kit will recycle data way faster than a 64GB kit can ever do, it's a case of more means less. Then again, Lower FPS doesn't have to mean unplayable, it all depends on your frame time, so latency matters a lot and you don't get the best out of your combo with this RAM bounding, I run tests at high DCS settings, tree tops in the Caucasus map, the FPS doesn't look fabulous but I have no or very little flickering, it's smooth. Low FPS can be normal under load, what is not is lower image quality, flickering, ghosting etc, VRAM and RAM plays a major role here, VRAM frequency helps with frame time, RAM helps your CPU to keep your channels open and your GPU to work under the best conditions possible. Now I'm gone to the point where the limits are that of my headset, not my combo, ghosting and flickering showing in the Pico but not in the replays, so I'm not bothered with mid-40 FPS for as long as the game stays smooth and I still have some margin with VRAM frequency...
  15. Those were the original offers, Seller agreed to reduce to £90, I reduced mine to £85, the RM1000X happen to be brand new, no reason not to swap considering that the 850 wouldn't guaranty any headroom for future upgrade, like the 750 before it which I had to swap for the 850. Just to give yet another idea of how the need for stronger power supply increases with new generations of technologies, my system is now DDR4, my GPU like all GPU actually in the market is PCI_E Gen 4, we have no idea of what a PCI_E Gen 5 system will need apart for some clues like this: i913900k An AMD Ryzen™ 9 7950X3D has a Default TDP of 120W. I'm not gonna upgrade my system for the stake of spending money, I will be looking for increased performances for both GPU and CPU, meaning very likely to be faster than either i9-13900KS, 7950-X3D and RX 7900 XTX, the only thing I might keep for a while would be the Cl14 RAM, here is why, this is the very reason why I chose to stick with a DDR4 system together with DDR5 RAM immaturity. AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Initial Performance: AM5 Enters the X3D Era So either I'm stocked with AMD (I'm not a groupie, I have nothing against Intel as long as it is good, I loved my EVGA GTX 1080Ti) or if I consider going for a mixed system, my next CPU might need 110.83% more power plus cooling... So anyone telling me for certain that they know that I won't need more than 850 W for my future upgrade (PCI_E Gen5, stronger GPU than my RX 7900 XTX, next generation of RAM new die with lower latency etc) is just lying. Next generation of GPUs and PCUs are gonna need more power, not less, that's the way manufacturers are increasing performances and it comes with increased heat radiation so more cooling is also needed, right now I'm just able to keep my system at <> 10°C below thermal limits (90/90°C) for both GPU and CPU in average with picks at - 5°C and I got 6 case fans among which two high airflow Noctuas. In short, better more than too little, I experienced that first hand when I purchased my 750, having to swap it for the 850 (new) after only two years, that's something only experience can tell you, you just cannot tell what your system need for power will be tomorrow once all the technologies you're waiting for to be marketed are mature. Recommended PSU 1000W (Min. 850W) That's what I mean. If people want to go by the minimum and ignore the recommended wattage, they risk to find themselves in the position where I was when I upgraded to the 5600X/1080Ti.
  16. To start with the useful info bit; add your complete system stats to your signature, because there are some important aspects of it missing, like which O.S, what RAM are you running etc. Then we are talking about the most demanding game I've played so far when it comes to system performances, especially in VR, so OK, you don't do VR but you still live under the same limitations as everyone else. 1) O.S. Windows will take a fair chunk of your memory if you don't optimize your system for gaming: 2) Disable/uninstall every single app you don't need, or else they keep running in the background and that's as much your game can't use. 3) Disable Automatic Update. 4) Disable MPO If you don't trust the app here is the regedit address. Setting goes from 0 to 5, if the key doesn't exist create one. >>> All I know about the 5900X is that it can be O.Ced, the best you can do to improve performances for this CPU is to bound a DDR4 BDie Cl14 kit to it is make sure it comes in one 4 X sticks kit, the 3200MHz can easily be O.Ced top 3600MHz, just make sure your CPU and case cooling are TOP. My recommendation for AMD DDR4 CPU is this kit: G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR, it comes on 3200 or 3600MHz. Anything equivalent from Corsair will do as well just don't mix two 2 X 1 sticks together, this can cause incompatibility issues even from the same batch, they need to be factory-tested and approved. The way your GPU and CPUs are mounted on your motherboard can result in a cumulation of calories, a hotspot at the back of the CPU if the airflow is not exhausted fast enough, I strongly recommend mounting a high airflow fan at the back of the case. I personally use the Noctua NF-A12x25 PWM, you got 102,1 m³/h from it, I have two, one blowing IN, the other OUT, the CPU is cooled by an Artic 7X, I have a total of 6 case fans + CPU fan. About your 6900XT, see 3) and 4), then you can start thinking about OCing it, I can't tell you much about gains in frequencies and VRAM frequencies for this GPU but I know that it will O.C properly IF you cool it properly and of course, depending on model and maker, some are better cooled than other and it all depends on your thermal limits... Don't panic if your O.C settings crashes after a driver update, I experienced that as well, You got to do it all over again, progressively until you reach the acceptable limits of your card, mine have reached 3000MHz running DCS in VR/MT but I'm pleased with a little less than that for as long as it is stable with the latest driver. In short, increased Maximum Power Limit, RAM and GPU frequencies, lower Voltage, my settings are now different from thew previous one, values are only the maximum given to the card, not what it will reach under load. Jigfio makes very good tutorials but unfortunately they are in French, what you can do is watch it and emulate what he is doing with his max figures as goal. TUTO Overclocking - AMD RX 7900
  17. Hilarious, so now you CANT read headroom, and for you it doesn't include an upgrade path but you can tell us what will be the power consumption of our next upgrade? Get yourself an Oxford for your ten bucks, because I made it clear from the start that I made a suggestion based on experience: And I forgot, I have two M2 SSDs in this system now, even wrote about it in this very forum, damned my math are letting me down... So Mystic Meg here can tell us what we need now for the next 4 years, next generation power consumption, how much M2 SSDs/SATA we'll need for years of storage... That's cute... And something else, you really should have read the article before lecturing us on how to comprehend what it says and assume what I wrote, instead of being stupidly confrontational stocked in an assumptive line trying to lecture people of what they need: >>> I mentioned the motherboard load of 143W, I didn't say it was its own consumption and I'm prertty sure it was the last bit where I gave wattage on this line but eh, it must be my French, meanwhile, the article also mention the fact that with Precision Boost Overdrive enabled, it goes from 143W to 221W, my 5800X 3D doesn't use PBO, just to say... So apparently you give advises to people while being unable to comprehend what you write yourself and assuming that you know what our next system power consumption will be, Im impressed, btw, all your estimate for power consumption were wrong so you really need your little gadget.
  18. Where did I say the opposite? I mention the GPU bandwidth of DDR5 systems, not the DDR5 RAM, the whole point being that today, you can buy a DDR5 system, your GPU will still be limited to PCI_E Gen4, and in the Intel systems you can fit DDR4 or 5. Say the guy who get M2 SSD power comsumption 50% off. You're finished?
  19. Doesn't need to. You get your figures wrong for a starter, by 50% in the case of an SSD, then I made it clear that I was looking for headroom, which mean that since this PSU will outlast the rest of the system in upgrades only, I'll still have headroom when I complete my next upgrade in a couple of years. Simple: Power consumption (and thermal radiation meaning more cooling) increased enormously since my previous system: 44.9% on the CPU alone from 5600X to 5800X 3D, 50% on the GPU from EVGA GTX 1080Ti to the RX 7900 XTX, + DDR5 new Mobo, new RAM most probable when DDR5 technology is mature, new CPU, new GPU, I see no reason why I wouldn't need more than 850W if I go for performance increase. I purchased my RM1000X on Ebay brand new for £90.00 and sold my RM850X for £85.00 and I won't have to upgrade this PSU when I'll have completed my next full PC upgrade.
  20. 1) One thing people going DDR5 doesn't realize is that their GPU will not be running differently than a DDR4 system, there isn't a GPU in the market running PCI_E Gen 5 today so they are bandwidth limited to DDR4 standard. 2) at 4K, you'll need maximum bandwidth from your CPU/RAM combination, DDR5 systems use higher frequencies, but it is possible to run a much lower latency with an optimized DDR4 system, a kit of 4 X 8GB Cl14 3200 or 3600MHz works especially well with the 5800x3d which are designed to make use of lower latency, something RAM manufacturers cannot equal with the actual dies with DDR5. 3) I don't test my system at lower resolution than 4K, and all my system is optimized for 4K resolution, I do my tests with heavy environment (Mirage 2000C very low level flying at tree top in the middle of a valley with threes all over ask a lot of redraw from the GPU), no 2D so I'm not sure of the difference but VR/MT, at very high DCS settings, I end up with mid-40s FPS but the play stays smooth thanks to low frame times. The 5600X wouldn't give me the same performances although it runs slightly faster than the 5800x3d thanks to the combination of cache and low latency RAM kit, the CPU will not throttle down under load which it will do with a Cl16 RAM kit, you must be careful to stay within the capabilities of your CPU controller: 3200MHz (3600MHz with BDie Cl14), 4 ranks. At 4K you're under load most of the time so if you have more than 4 ranks your CPU will throttle down under load, best combination is 4 X 8GB because those sticks are the only one to posses 1 rank per stick, I tested a 4 X 16GB back to back and the 4 X 8GB was <> 31% faster in average. Screenshot taken today and as I said, there was no flickering on the sides, the FPS went that low but play stayed smooth, here I was testing my new high airflow fans. I was recording (AMD software) as well as using Afterburner so you can add 10/12 FPS more to this... Wrong. An high performance pump draw more than 18W and that's not taking into account the extra high airflow fans, 3 X 1,68 W, bringing the total to 7 plus the water cooler own fan, the 990-Pro M2 SSD goes up to 7.8 W, 9 W x 2 for the 970 SATAs, the CPU, 118W, the GPU, 368 to 420W+ (Boost, before and with O.C), 143W for the motherboard, add keyboard, mouse, mobile phone and electric shaver charging, drawing tablet (planned). You just can't get it right with just "fews" and "maybes", you need to know exactly what your system is consuming, when I mention headroom I know what I'm talking about because I can see what's hanging from my PC USB hubs and I know what I want to add to it.
  21. It depends on the number of SSDs you have, RAM, fans etc. With a 4090 your Average Gaming Power (W) is 315/450W and that's a minimum depending on the card maker, if you want to upgrade later with more storage space and have some headroom you need to compute the maximum power you'll need from your PSU. I had a Corsair 850W and had to upgrade to a 1000W because I keep adding stuff in the box, lately I end up with 6 case fans + 1 CPU fan, one M2 SSD and I still have to mount one extra SATA I removed during the upgrade, it's a lot of power draw. especially because I might mount a CPU water cooler in the future. So going for the headroom would avoid you to have to sell your 850W in Ebay like I did, have a good look at what your devices need and plan for some headroom.
  22. Pump those calories OUT! I figured it works after testing the two configurations back to back, a low pressure fan vs one of the two Noctua NF-A12x25 PWM I ordered, I installed it at the back of the case, it is a high airflow fan (102,1 m³/h) and does a very good job of replacing the previous fan which was good as well but low pressure for my previous 5600X/1080Ti system. There was an hot spot behind the CPU fan with the RX 7900 XTX, since both it and the CPU generate tons of heat, if the rear fan creates a bottleneck, your system will stay hot. The second one haven't been delivered yet but I will install it in the front/high position so as to aliment the case with more cool(er) air (right now also a low pressure Noctua). If you have 120mm fans that is not doing their job, this will do. Today's test. Thermals under control: CPU; 4425 MHz 80°C, GPU; 2796MHz 83°C.
  23. I can give mine away (Corsair RM 750X) if you're ready to pay for postage, UK only. It is boxed with cables in two packages into my 1000W box, weight is 2.70 kg, without wrapping paper, postage should be between <> £7/15 first class recorded. Contact me by PM if interested.
×
×
  • Create New...