

kksnowbear
Members-
Posts
880 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by kksnowbear
-
But you didn't just say what you do. Just saying what you do would be "I buy new", as opposed to what you actually said ("This is why...") (I didn't put those words there, you did that. I quoted your exact words.) When someone says "This is why I (do x)" the implication is that they do x to avoid the consequences of not doing it that way. You implied that buying new somehow avoids the consequence of the OP's unfortunate experience - which, of course, is inaccurate. (Incidentally, plenty of people get ripped off every day buying new stuff. Again, it's about where/who you deal with, not new or used).
-
Thanks - me too Well, OK to be accurate, I was very blessed this past Christmas and now have a 'top of the line' build for the first time since c.1990 lol But for the past 30+years, a lot of my own stuff has been second-hand as well. As you put it, no regrets...and I am quite sure I've saved *thousands* in that time by not going all-new latest and greatest stuff. Not to completely derail the topic; without getting too far into it, I think it's terrible that people do stuff like the OP describes. It would seem the key is to know who you're dealing with.
-
Not to get to far off topic...but there are those of us out here who deal primarily in used components/systems, and have worked very hard to build a customer following that is 100% satisfied (and a growing list of "repeat clients"). It's just not accurate to imply that in order to avoid getting cheated you have to buy new. Reputable dealers are reputable dealers. Absolutely nothing wrong with used hardware, provided you deal with the right person. I offer references to every prospective client and encourage them to inquire. Sorry for the distraction, but please don't "throw out the baby with the bath water".
-
Quick survey on your GPU Usage in game?
kksnowbear replied to The_Nephilim's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Broadly and generally, yes...but that's the thing: Although I refer to 90% usage as ideal, whether/how much you actually get in any game is going to depend on more than just hardware. I know, for example, that benchmarks like Fire Strike/Time Spy will use a GPU more than 90% during test runs. This is in part because they're designed to load a GPU heavily. At the same time, and as I believe we've all seen, typical game software doesn't really use a CPU to it's fullest potential. One or two cores might get 50-60% busy while 6 or more sit there at single-digit utilization. Obviously this isn't because the CPU can't do more; it has plenty of overhead left at that rate. So although I do believe a better CPU will help improve GPU usage in a system that's not optimally matched, I also think it's very true that the software is going to be a factor as well. Of course, therein lies the rub: You can throw hardware at improving game performance (within the limitation of your resources)...but there's no amount of hardware or money spent on it that will change some aspects of how well any given game actually uses the hardware. Hopefully that makes sense. -
Computer spec recommendation please.
kksnowbear replied to Lee1's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Nor did I say you did. Simply saying it has come up, and that it's a misleading generalization based on bad data. FWIW I don't necessarily disagree concerning a 1500W unit. That said, however, I would also say there are other considerations that might suggest a 1500W unit is not 'ridiculous', even if it is overkill. Things like budget, availability in a given location...even sale prices; any/all these might make a 1500W unit a reasonable choice. Also, people tend to keep PSUs through multiple builds, and future upgrade(s) might make a 1500 less likely to need replacing next time. I don't think a 1000W unit should be represented as max for a 4090, I think it should be minimum (again, generally and depending on circumstances). I think max can only be determined by considering other, non-technical factors like cost, budget, and so on. Of course, "max" will ultimately be determined by the type electrical circuit available, and in the US at least, 1500W is pretty much max for output of a computer PSU, for many typical homes (there are exceptions). And, to be completely accurate, in a proper setup (i.e. with a UPS), a 1500W PSU is actually excessive - again, with some rare exceptions, and in the USA. But not for the reasons you might think. TBH the equation from my perspective is not limited to strictly the size of the PSU. The power protection that's required (again, on a 15A breaker) is part of the equation as well. I see a lot of people saying they have 1000-1500W PSUs on a 1500VA UPS (which, unfortunately, is also usually misguided). The *real* problem with power supplies over 1000W is that proper electrical protection can be difficult to find, and is considerably more expensive (again, in the US). The only thing that's less intelligent than running an overloaded UPS is not having any power protection at all... But that's another subject. -
Quick survey on your GPU Usage in game?
kksnowbear replied to The_Nephilim's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Yeah, I would imagine that's it. I'd venture that your new GPU just isn't having to work as hard as your old one, because it's the same system otherwise, meaning the system will now be less capable of 'feeding' the more powerful GPU. I've seen the same thing several times, when people went to much more powerful GPUs just to see the system wasn't capable of giving the GPU enough to do, so the usage drops. (Of course, you can give the GPU more to do, like higher settings and/or resolution, but this doesn't always work in a 'linear' fashion, and of course there are limits). More to the point of your question, I think in an ideal circumstance you want a GPU that is loaded well into the 90% range (assuming you can keep it cool enough at that load to prevent it dropping clock speed. This means (to me) you're getting the GPU performance you actually paid for. Unfortunately - in my opinion, of course - unless you're using some kind of standardized testing method, you have to generalize. Some games are far better at using GPU's strengths than others, and some GPUs are disproportionately better at some games because of things like specific optimizations via drivers (as one example). So, as generalization, I'd say GPU usage should ideally be up in the 90th percentile, ideally. Again I do understand it's not exactly what you're asking for, but hopefully it helps. In any case, good luck -
Computer spec recommendation please.
kksnowbear replied to Lee1's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
An 850W PSU is NOT adequate for all 4090s. All 4090s are not the same, and it also depends on the exact PSU as well. 4090s have been documented to experience excursions of 700W (just the GPU) - and that's something that most people don't have the necessary test equipment (by far) to accurately measure. The plug-in 'Kill A Watt' type meters are nowhere near fast or sensitive enough to catch the excursions, nor is the display on a UPS (or it's software, which uses the same data source, of course). Relying on those devices as a basis for saying 850W is enough for a 4090 is just misleading, for obvious reasons. It's like someone using a scale that only weighs up to 300 pounds, when they're 310 and trying to see if their diet is working: The measuring device just isn't up to the task. Factually, I've tested 5 different "name brand" power supplies with my 4090 for this very reason. *All* of these were decent quality units, all 80 Plus Gold, and all rated for continuous output (as any good PSU is) at the 4090 manufacturer's recommended 850 watts. (In case you missed that: My 4090 is only recommended for an 850W PSU by Asus, it's actually not even one that they recommend 1000W for, which would obviously be even more demanding of the PSU). Two of the five restarted the machine when loaded during testing, and according to the stupid "Kill A Watt" type meter, the entire machine was drawing less than 700W - which should be well within the continuous output rating for all 5 units. And the same two PSUs that failed with the 4090s are also proven to handle not one but *two* 1080Ti GPUs in a system that the Kill A Watt indicates was actually drawing more power than the 4090 system was. (Two 1080Tis factually are rated for 500W TDP, where a single 4090 is 450W). This proves that these two PSUs are plenty capable of the rated load for the 4090, but they couldn't handle the excursions, which again are documented to occur in 4090s. And before it comes up: Yes, the 4090 test was on an AM5 system - a 7800X3D to be exact. So it's also not true to say these CPUs use little enough power that an 850 is OK. Two of the five PSUs I tested say otherwise. I can say with absolute certainty that not all 850W PSUs (even brand name higher end units) will power all 4090s. It depends on the exact card and the exact PSU. This has come up before. Just because *any* (single) system, with a specific model of 4090 in that particular system, seems to run OK with the specific model 850W PSU in that system...does not equate to "an 850W PSU is enough for a 4090". That's an over-generalization that will lead to problems in some cases - exactly as my testing proves (and is echoed elsewhere as well). The problem is all these 'experts' dispensing blanket advice that an 850 is enough aren't considering the range of possibilities between different PSU models and different 4090 models. In fact, manufacturers recommend 1000W for some 4090 models while recommending 850 for others - clearly showing they understand the difference is the GPU model itself, regardless of the rest of the system. It simply depends on a lot of factors and it's just wrong to say an 850W PSU is adequate for a 4090 in every instance. You should either use a 1000W PSU, or one of the newer units rated for excursions of 3x the rated wattage (ATX 3.0). -
Quick survey on your GPU Usage in game?
kksnowbear replied to The_Nephilim's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Not exactly the data you asked for, but a question: When you say in the past...meaning before what? I assume you mean it appears something changed, such that GPU usage is less now - is that right? So do you know what was different when you remembered it being higher? Just wondering if you can associate the change you're seeing with something else that also changed. -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Probably the best deal in that list is the WD SN850X 4TB. Do not buy a DRAM-less drive, you'll regret it. These are drives hobbled by omitting components, explicitly to save cost. No point in scrimping over that relatively tiny amount in savings compared to the cost of a system that is otherwise top-end as yours is. Fact is, no one would be stupid enough to pay for better drives that have RAM cache if it really made no difference. It does matter - period. DRAMless drives exist for one reason only: To appeal to a lower-cost market segment. They are made to be cheaper, not better. Note also the list has *no* PCIe 5.0 drives, which is the newer spec and up to twice as fast. It is supported on your board (but may require moving your current drive when you add your new drive). Personally I choose/professionally I generally advise to carefully consider buying storage that is older spec, particularly where the buyer is concerned with 'future proofing'. Bottom line: Using components that fail to take advantage of the advances in technology that your board already supports, and in a high-end system like yours, which you paid for to get the best performance possible... ...is exactly like having a high-end racing car and putting crappy low octane gas in it. Result is same: Performance will be less. Top fuel dragsters do not run 87 octane gas from a station pump, for a reason. And you don't have to know anything about computers to see why this is true, of course. Looking at it another way: You acknowledge more than once above that you're not knowledgeable about these things...but you paid for a top-end system for this very reason: You want top end performance. Think carefully before hobbling it with components that are like cheap gas. Is it worth saving a (very) small percentage of what you already spent on the high-end system? Would you use cheap gas to save a tiny amount even though the race car can run better with high-end gas? -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
As for the possibility of installing a new drive yourself, there are lots of videos online for how to do it...so, maybe a good idea to at least review a few of these before you decide, to see if it's something you think you can do. It involves (typically) removing a small screw, and sliding the drive itself (usually 22mmx80mm) into a slot (on the 22mm end), then using the screw to secure the drive. BUT!! In *your* case, it's even simpler: Asus has replaced the tiny screws (very fiddly) with rotating latches, so it's even easier! Here's one video There are lots, but they're usually < 2mins, so watch a couple to get comfortable. -
The problem with what you're asking is that, essentially any upgrade you can do that: - will be 'future proof' and remain relevant *and* - be enough of a performance increase (over the current 9600k) to feel 'worth it' in terms of cost *and* - is not "current top chip or emerging" Well...that set of specs is more or less prohibitive, IMO. You already have a 9600K and you're concerned about being CPU bound, so anything that's going to actually "feel" like an upgrade that's worth the cost will also likely be approaching the current top chips in terms of cost. You could go with a 9900K, **probably** supported by your current board (need more detail to know)...but, while it's definitely a step up from a 9600K, it's only around 5-10% performance increase (depending on the metric - and this is *NOT* measuring FPS, it's just CPU performance in general). Anything that's going to perform better than that ~5% increase will almost certainly require replacing the motherboard and possibly RAM as well. For example, an AMD 5800X3D might bring another ~5% (around 10% increase total over the 9600k) but will require a new motherboard. If you can find one used and don't mind buying used components, it might be affordable to you, but if you want only new components, a 5800X3D retails now (US) for around $300, and a decent board might be had for another $150...depending on where you are, you can find reasonable bundles and maybe save a bit. You have to consider, though, at that point, the board cannot be upgraded any further. A 5800X3D is almost certainly the 'last stop' in performance for a build like this, so it's not what most would call "future proof". And if you only want new parts (not used) the price is going to get up toward what you might get a newer generation platform for. One thing that might fit in the (very narrow) range you're describing might be an AMD 7700X build ...you'll need new RAM, but at least (if it's done right) the board will be one that's worth upgrading once or twice in the future; one of the advantages of an AMD build like this is that (unlike Intel) the board will be supported with at least the next two generations of newer CPUs - this specifically applies to your requirement concerning remaining relevant/'future proofing'. May I suggest you give us more info to work with? For instance: - What's your budget? (As much as I hate asking people about money, I find as a professional that it is almost always the best place to start, and it invariably drives the final outcome more so than any other factor.) - Your location? (This can greatly affect cost of upgrades, but more significantly can limit what's available regardless of cost) - How much RAM do you have now, and what configuration (i.e., number of modules, speed, and CAS level? (These are very easy to find out if you don't know). - What manufacturer/model is your current motherboard? (To help determine if there is any possibility of a 'drop-in' CPU replacement, albeit limited in terms of performance increase) - (helpful but not as crucial) When did you intend to have this upgrade completed/'wheels up'? (Because often, the timetable can alter price and availability quite a bit). - Whether you're willing to consider used parts (because this can make a big difference in cost).
-
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Well thank goodness MAXSenna has the answer...how to move DCS is something I am remotely aware of, but as before, definitely not my area of expertise. I would say, though, that there would seem little point in paying to put a second drive in, if you're *not* going to use it (for DCS, or *something* lol). So get the company to add the drive if you want, then do what MAXSenna outlined...should be all set! EDIT: Not sure what would be involved with having Scan install the drive, but I would say that you should consider finding a way to do it locally. Possibly save a considerable amount (since having Scan do it might involve shipping...?) -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
I think there is some excellent 'guidance' above concerning the size of add-ons...it's not my area of expertise, really. But I do believe it's worth considering the time and effort that could be involved in having to swap stuff back and forth vs having immediate access as Slippa mentioned earlier. Also, be aware that reading data from an SSD has no adverse impact...but writing is what causes wear over time. The 'life expectancy' or 'health' numbers are based on writes to the drive, and determined by the amount of data written over time...now, we're talking some very big numbers...but if your situation involves constant swapping/replacing (writing), you will reach that number sooner than if you're not having to do that. The very best way to treat an SSD is write to it once and only read from it forever after, although that is usually not practical. What I do personally is try to make sure I install game(s) once, update only if/when needed, and don't move/delete if at all avoidable. That's the best practical way to treat any SSD. Finally, deleting data on an SSD doesn't work like it did on a conventional hard disk. It involves more than just one step, and part of the process is additional writing...so it can be relatively time consuming and also shorten the life of the drive. Again, I want to emphasize the amount of data written has to be very large to cause exceptional wear, and none of this is going to cause drastic problems in a short time. I don't want to cause unreasonable fear or concern by handing out bad information, ever. But some people keep machines for many years, and storage for as long as it works...over which time if you're writing tons of data, could cause wear at a higher rate. Way I see it, avoid the behavior, avoid the problems; particularly since it's easy to avoid and not outrageously expensive. These are absolutely real factors that you need to weigh. -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
I would say yes to a second drive. I don't think a third drive is needed or a good idea at this time. As for getting it installed...since the machine is new, it might be worth checking with the seller to see if there's any impact on their warranty if someone else adds a drive. IMHO it should not be an issue, but I am not familiar with rules and practices where you are. Provided it isn't a problem with the seller, then I'd at least look around locally to see if anyone nearby does PC work - you might also ask the seller if they can recommend anyone local to you. Adding a drive isn't difficult at all...but if you aren't comfortable doing it (and - depending on how you decide to set it up) it is worth finding someone who knows what they're doing. If getting another drive installed is just going to be prohibitive (cost, availability, etc) then it's worth noting that the setup you have right now won't explode because of the drive's free space getting below 50%. So you could go like that for probably quite some time. You'd need to keep a watchful eye on it and carefully manage adding/removing stuff. There is some excellent info above about what/how DCS can use. (TBH the details posted by MAXsenna are very enlightening and I absolutely agree 25% free is a big concern). If you want to address the situation so that it's not required to be so watchful and careful, the way to go is more storage. -
Just as preface, I personally (and as a professional) don't subscribe to the idea of "future proofing". That said, when it comes to gaming, there simply is no better way to go right now than the AMD 7800X3D. Naturally this assumes you have budget for it and so forth...but if it's available to you/within your means, it would be just about impossible to out-do, especially for what it costs. Perhaps the best part, in terms of remaining relevant and "future proofing" is the fact that AMD is committed to supporting the platform (chipset/socket) with new CPUs for at least the two following generations. That's my take, anyway...and I own one, plus have built a few more for others.
-
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Generally, I might be inclined to agree...to a point, that is. SSD performance also decreases as the unused space decreases. I personally suggest considering a bigger drive once you're near ~50% capacity (although every case is different). That said, my comments were intended to address the performance aspect of a single drive vs two. That aspect, coupled with the fact that the OP is over 50% storage already used, suggests to me a second drive is a reasonable choice. It's unfortunate that the OP might not be able to "DIY" a swap and just get a smaller drive as I outlined above (moving DCS install to his current 2TB unit)...but if 'drop in' simplicity is a requirement, the way to go would be add a second drive, 2TB or more - as I mentioned previously. It's worth noting here that the OPs machine is fairly top end...so it's not outrageous to suggest a small percentage of what the machine probably cost is 'worth it' in order to achieve a fairly significant storage enhancement. (FWIW I'd probably also suggest a memory upgrade, but that's a separate discussion...which will undoubtedly also stir the hornet's nest with the "experts" since this is an AM5 build...) All my own opinion, of course (but based upon first-hand, actual experience across multiple builds of the same type, and 40+ years' computer experience in general). -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
It most assuredly does, if you're in the market during the year-long period (or more) of the increase. *Your* cost will be higher (and per the article I linked, actually kept on increasing over that time). People looking to buy components aren't necessarily always in a position to (or don't want to) wait out a price drop. By the way, tell everyone still waiting on a 4090 about prices always dropping (I know it's not storage...but that's beside the point: Waiting doesnt always mean the cost savings is worth the wait). Also, a major part of the chart you linked is indicating the period over which solid state storage was still very expensive in order to overcome engineering cost, which is always the case early on. The prices in the chart I linked are much more recent and therefore don't reflect the same level of engineering cost. My chart also includes data more recently than 2023, which yours seems to omit. -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
At the expense of increased performance, perhaps. Actually that's not really accurate, at least recently. Over the past year, SSD prices on most all brands and sizes have actually increased a fair amount. Here's a link with references for the 3 most common sizes from the biggest manufacturers: https://www.techspot.com/article/2799-ssd-pricing-q1-24/ It's current as of January this year and I don't think it's much different now. Specifically, that article states: SSDs have been getting more expensive, and that trend is not limited to specific brands or capacities. And people in the industry actually knew it was coming for some time before last summer. So what you buy and when is not a simple time-linear proposition. -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
If I understand your question, no I believe there's nothing to be lost from installing a second drive (cost of adding the drive itself excluded, of course) provided the board will support it. According to the Asus website, your board will support 3 drives. In fact, you could actually improve performance further still by going to a PCIe Gen 5 drive, because your board supports 1 of those and your current Corsair drive is only Gen 4. Of course, my having said that, the haters are gonna crawl outta the woodwork now, with dire warnings about how it's not "worth it" (which is absolutely up to the individual) and it won't perform better (there is data to show that's not entirely accurate). I have to be clear here and acknowledge DCS doesn't currently support the technology offering the the biggest benefit to performance, but it will benefit from faster storage regardless...and no one can accurately say DCS will never support the better technology. I'm actually of the opinion that it will, based on the fact that it has already implemented other performance-enhancing features like multi-threading and DLSS (which both required explicit coding changes, yet are both already done and stand to improve more over time) -
Storage question. New to pc's
kksnowbear replied to Ghostmaker's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
A 2TB drive is typically OK, but it shouldn't be the same physical drive as your PC boots from as is the case currently. Get a second drive, 2TB (or more if you can afford it) and move the entire DCS install to the new drive**. You'll have more free space (a typical DCS install runs 300-500GB as I understand it, of course add-ons take more space)... ...but, significantly, it will help performance (but for God's sake "performance' is not always reliably measured strictly by FPS). It *will* improve performance, but will *not* likely change FPS (in almost any case). The performance benefit you get is not the sort that increases FPS, and as (almost) anyone can understand, there is far more to overall 'performance' in a computer than sheer stupid FPS. (And I'm also not just talking about faster load times, either). As a grossly oversimplified analogy, imagine a crowd of people attempting to get pieces of fruit from a single basket. No matter how you line the people up or otherwise regulate their efforts, having a second basket of fruit will always allow more people to get more fruit, faster than if they only have access to one basket. And, the faster each person gets their fruit, the less time every other person has to wait for theirs. Fairly simple. Sorry to sound so stern but I thought I'd get this out of the way before the parade of 'experts' that will say it doesn't do what I'm telling you. It does, it's very common, and it's been understood for decades in computers. ** As an aside, you could actually get a smaller drive, use it to boot the system, and use your current 2TB drive for DCS. That way would be cheaper, but TBH it's complicated to do unless you're comfortable working with computers, installing the operating system from scratch and so forth...and it's not my impression from reading your initial post that this is something you'd want to do. I'm just throwing it out there by way of saying it is actually an option. -
Advice for New PC Needed
kksnowbear replied to Captain Chuck's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Hi...unless I'm mistaken, the S5 G.Skill modules are Intel XMP as opposed to AMD EXPO. Now, I'm not going to say it won't work - because factually I have done exactly that (used Intel XMP modules to fully populate an AM5 board with four 16G modules) and it worked. Passed MemTest 8 and 10 at the rated speed and CAS levels, no problem, as well as everything else thrown at it so far. Games, stress tests, benchmarks...everything works as expected. *However*...if you have the choice going into it, you should definitely consider trying to get modules with AMD EXPO profiles, like the G.Skill Flare X5 that LucShep linked previously. But it does not have to be CAS30 in two 32G modules, if you cannot get that where you are and/or if you just prefer to go with 32G for now for your own reasons (see below for more detail). What it really depends on is what the motherboard supports, and unless I'm mistaken the modules you mentioned are included in the QVL for the Asrock board you cited earlier: https://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/B650 Pro RS/index.asp#MemoryRAP AsRock cites quite a few XMP (as opposed to EXPO) modules as supported by this board, so clearly it will work. To be accurate it appears AsRock has listed module/socket support as two in many cases, but that seems very dubious considering it also lists two modules for much slower/higher CAS modules (4800CL40, which is DDR5 'default' speed, and I think even AMD has said four modules are supported by the IMC). Seems to me this is more likely what they physically had available to test, than what will actually work. I can't say for sure because I've not tested that board at all (I actually don't use AsRock boards as a matter of practice). I know in the Asus boards I've tested, 4x16G XMP modules 6000 CL36 works just fine. Just be aware it doesn't have to be two 32G modules of CAS30 in order to work. Four modules that are 6000 MTs CL36 will still work just fine, if it's all that's available where you are. You'll never notice the difference in performance if it's not CAS30. And you can save a little money now by using two 16G modules if you're happy with 32G...upgrade later by adding two more 16G modules if you feel you need to (it should be noted that many have asserted DCS will use >32G...but again budget/cost is usually *the* deciding factor!) All this laid aside, if you're paying someone to do this then I'd suggest the key is to make absolutely sure they will stand behind what they sell, no questions asked. -
Advice for New PC Needed
kksnowbear replied to Captain Chuck's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
The unfortunate reality is that you 'don't get it' because you don't want to. You're trying very hard to prove it cannot work, when I've assured you it *has* already been done. (Note I'm talking about lower cost here, having already conclusively addressed the question of four modules v two and CAS levels). It happens that we agree: If you go about it the way you've outlined, then you're absolutely right; it wouldn't make sense. A client would be asked to pay more for the same or slightly less. They could almost certainly do better on their own, strictly in that regard. However - and as I've already explained - that's not what I do. Since it would undoubtedly raise objections about being 'off-topic', 'hijacking' or result in (total BS) complaints that I'm only here to try and sell something (never mind other people on this site do so, exclusively, all the time lol)... ...I'm not going to go into extensive detail here about *how* it works, because that's more or less a business model which (like many) encompasses 'trade secrets'. You'll just have to accept that it does happen, and that several members of this very forum have benefited from it, including multiple/repeat builds in some cases. Fact is, I figure out how to make it happen, in a way/at a cost they are better off with. They spend less for the same/comparable level of performance (and sometimes we're not talking a little bit less, either). They're happy. I'm happy. Still not sure why it bothers you so, since those actually involved are all quite happy. -
Advice for New PC Needed
kksnowbear replied to Captain Chuck's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Thanks, but... naah. TBH it's not something I see as worth spending time on, where that same time could be used on efforts that allow me to find and offer my clients the kind of deals they want. Proving that 99% of AM5 builds use memory x or y just doesn't matter in the same way that using four modules instead of two actually saved significant cost for the people I did these builds for. That's the type thing worth my spending time on. Apparently, "everyone" is actually not selling bundles with 6000 CAS30. (What with MicroCenter being part of "everyone" ...and a fairly large part, at that). And considering what MicroCenter is offering in bundles, I'd say it at least seems likely that CAS30 is not more readily available to them. Certainly looks like they're trying to move what they have more of (because...retail). What is "best" depends on a lot more than CAS levels. Cost by itself drives far more decisions than most any other factor, most of the time, in my experience. Being "best" technically doesn't matter at all if someone simply cannot afford it. What was 'best' at the time, to the clients with the four builds I mentioned, was getting comparable performance for a *much* better price, even if it meant sacrificing slightly better CAS levels (which is indistinguishable for any practical purpose). -
Advice for New PC Needed
kksnowbear replied to Captain Chuck's topic in PC Hardware and Related Software
Your assumptions about how I built the systems? Wrong. Your initial assertion that you can't use four 6000MT/s RAM modules at a CAS less than 40? Also wrong. Your 'bet' regarding custom memory timings etc? You'd lose. If I can provide a better deal on performance that is indistinguishable using components that at the time were *far* less expensive... ...well, again, I don't imagine I'd be doing builds (and second and even *third* builds) for people who keep on coming back, unless I'm providing a service they certainly seem to value. Interesting. Hey I know... a compromise: You keep on telling folks it can't be done. Meantime, I'll keep on doing it. PS Just checked; the local MicroCenter has several AM5 bundles on sale right now... ...and exactly none of them include CAS30 modules. Regardless of which CPU, and even though all are 6000MT/s modules, none are CAS30. That's probably one of the biggest brick and mortar outfits the US. TBH I don't think the 99% figure you cited earlier is anywhere near accurate. You have sales figures or some other reference?