- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
i just basically stopped shooting, my brain can't comprehend the thought of .50+/round, outside of test firings (ie: underwood) or .50
lolz @ this kind of gaming hardware. it's not untrue...
Tech Gaming Hardware discussion (& Hardware Sales) thread
- Thread starter Madmick
- Start date
i just basically stopped shooting, my brain can't comprehend the thought of .50+/round, outside of test firings (ie: underwood) or .50
lolz @ this kind of gaming hardware. it's not untrue...
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 39,976
- Reaction score
- 7,526
My PC just straight up shuts off about 5-10 minutes after playing a game right now. Won't immediately turn on but is good in about 20 seconds. No repair screens or anything. Initial thoughts are PSU. Any ideas?
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 52,959
- Reaction score
- 16,735
When a PC just turns off like that no errors no warnings my first thought is something is overheating.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 39,976
- Reaction score
- 7,526
No overheating. Replaced the cooling unit about 2 months ago
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,514
- Reaction score
- 38,334
That's precisely why this could be the issue. Could be the thermal paste application didn't go smoothly, and that's beginning to show already.
Did you confirm there were no temp issues by monitoring your hardware during one of these game scenarios?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 39,976
- Reaction score
- 7,526
Zero heat. I definitely remember how hot it got when the fan died, but I'll check it again.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,491
- Reaction score
- 10,154
It's a pretty good tool to get an idea how far you can safely push your overclocks.. or if the overclocks are even worth it
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 7,875
- Reaction score
- 1,852
I haven't overclocked before but my hardware is getting old and who knows when these shortages will end so it might be time to learn. It can also diagnose performance issues so it's gotta be a good deal at five bucks. The only thing that makes me nervous is always wanting to upgrade once you see the benchmarks.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,514
- Reaction score
- 38,334
Overclocking doesn't really do a whole lot for gamers these days.
The turbo boosting on CPUs these days is too good. Check here. At the bottom you'll find the stats for Comet Lake. Let's focus on the 10900K:
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
Only the top 1% of i9 or i7 chips can hit an all-core turbo of 5.2 GHz. Meanwhile, on a single core, these chips will turbo up to 5.3 GHz. So depending on the game the stock chip will sometimes win the fps showdown.
No, what's more practical are the asymmetrical overclocks. You can see that 100% of chips can be overclocked to +200MHz above the max stock 3-core turbo, or +100Mhz vs. the max stock 6-core turbo. Thanks to TechPowerUp, we can see the stock turbo profile below. Their chip hit 5.0 GHz SSE across 6 threads (3 cores), and 4.9GHz across 12 threads (6 cores). So Silicon Lottery is telling us that 100% of 10900Ks can be manually overclocked to 5.1 GHz on up to 3 cores, or 5.1 GHz on up to 6 cores. The latter would be ideal for gaming, but once again, when you set the frequency like this, your top core won't turbo up to 5.3 GHz, so once again, you're making a trade-off.
However, there is some conflicting information on their chart if you inspect their site more closely. Say you're a lottery winner. You get one of the "golden" samples: Top 1%:
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/cometlake/products/10900kf51g
Those can get up to 5.3 GHz across 3 cores, and up to 5.2 GHz across up to 6 cores.
These raw factors of frequency bear out in actual overclocking reviews. For the Intel 10th Gen, Intel 9th Gen, Ryzen 5000 series, and Ryzen 3000 series, there's virtually nothing gained by overclocking in games. The trade-off is a huge spike in the consumption of power, heat, and associated noise output. This means you need a killer motherboard, CPU cooler, PSU (for a more stable current, not just more power), and finally good ventilation in the case. All of these associated costs mean overclocking only makes sense if you're already on a best-in-class system, and are looking to squeeze out a few extra percent performance. Otherwise, it makes more sense to simply buy a CPU that is the next step up.
3DMark is more practical for confirming an overclock's abstract performance potential with GPU. You can use your GPU software to set a boost frequency above the stock boost. Test where this gets you in 3DMark. Then decide if it's worth the consequences to thermals and noise. Of course, you don't need benchmarking software to do this. You can test it in the games you play with their fps. Verify an average fps for a particular segment of the game, timed, with FRAPS.
There are a few cards like the RX 5700 which have extraordinary overclocking potential if you void warranty by unlocking their power limit (what amounts to a governor set by AMD to limit the value of the card, and create a lower price point). The catch, even with these, is how it handles added heat from overclocking is determined by how effective the cooling solution is. So you'll want a 3-fan variant, or best of all, a custom liquid cooling aftermarket design. But the latter are expensive as hell. The opportunity cost of buying one is that you could have bought a more powerful GPU one or two tiers of performance above. So we run into the same issue as we did with CPUs. It really only makes sense to pursue these extra inches if you're on a Scrooge McDuck gaming rig.
After all, when you pay a premium for one of the nicer 3-fan GPUs, these days, what you're really purchasing isn't more performance, or much more performance, anyway, but a video card that will perform about equally while staying much cooler and quieter. Additional features like a no-fan idling mode and dual BIOS are the other perks. Notice no-fan modes have already become a factory feature with the NVIDIA RTX 3000 series and AMD RX 6000 series, and cooling performance with the reference editions is fantastic.
These companies are determined to give the customer everything he needs or wants directly. Long gone are the days of the Sandy Bridge DIY free performance gold rush.
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 7,875
- Reaction score
- 1,852
Well, thanks for the lesson. My timing is officially the worst.Overclocking for gamers doesn't really do a whole lot for gamers these days.
The turbo boosting on CPUs these days is too good. Check here. At the bottom you'll find the stats for Comet Lake. Let's focus on the 10900K:
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
Only the top 1% of i9 or i7 chips can hit an all-core turbo of 5.2 GHz. Meanwhile, on a single core, these chips will turbo up to 5.3 GHz. So depending on the game the stock chip will sometimes win the fps showdown.
No, what's more practical are the asymmetrical overclocks. You can see that 100% of chips can be overclocked to +200MHz above the max stock 3-core turbo, or +100Mhz vs. the max stock 6-core turbo. Thanks to TechPowerUp, we can see the stock turbo profile below. Their chip hit 5.0 GHz SSE across 6 threads (3 cores), and 4.9GHz across 12 threads (6 cores). So Silicon Lottery is telling us that 100% of 10900Ks can be manually overclocked to 5.1 GHz on up to 3 cores, or 5.1 GHz on up to 6 cores. The latter would be ideal for gaming, but once again, when you set the frequency like this, your top core won't turbo up to 5.3 GHz, so once again, you're making a trade-off.
However, there is some conflicting information on their chart if you inspect their site more closely. Say you're a lottery winner. You get one of the "golden" samples: Top 1%:
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/cometlake/products/10900kf51g
Those can get up to 5.3 GHz across 3 cores, and up to 5.2 GHz across up to 6 cores.
These raw factors of frequency bear out in actual overclocking reviews. For the Intel 10th Gen, Intel 9th Gen, Ryzen 5000 series, and Ryzen 3000 series, there's virtually nothing gained by overclocking in games. The trade-off is a huge spike in the consumption of power, heat, and associated noise output. This means you need a killer motherboard, CPU cooler, PSU (for a more stable current, not just more power), and finally good ventilation in the case. All of these associated costs mean overclocking only makes sense if you're already on a top-tier system.
3DMark is more practical for confirming an overclock's abstract performance potential with GPU. You can use your GPU software to set a boost frequency above the stock boost. Test where this gets you in 3DMark. Then decide if it's worth the consequences to thermals and noise. Of course, you don't need benchmarking software to do this. You can test it in the games you play with their fps. Verify an average fps for a particular segment of the game, timed, with FRAPS.
There are a few cards like the RX 5700 which have extraordinary overclocking potential if you void warranty by unlocking their power limit (what amounts to a governor set by AMD to limit the value of the card, and create a lower price point). Of course, even with these, how it handles added heat is determined by how effective the cooling solution. So you'll want a 3-fan variant, or best of all, a custom liquid cooling aftermarket design. But the latter are expensive as hell. The opportunity cost of buying one is that you could have bought a more powerful GPU one or two tiers of performance above. So we run into the same issue as we did with CPUs. It really only makes sense to pursue these extra inches if you're on a Scrooge McDuck gaming rig.
After all, when you pay a premium for one of the nicer 3-fan GPUs, these days, what you're really purchasing isn't more performance, or much more performance, anyway, but a video card that will perform about equally while staying much cooler and quieter. Additional features like a no-fan idling mode and dual BIOS are the other perks. Notice no-fan modes have already become a factory feature with the NVIDIA RTX 3000 series and AMD RX 6000 series, and cooling performance with the reference editions is fantastic.
These companies are determined to give the customer everything he needs or wants directly. Long gone are the days of the Sandy Bridge DIY free performance gold rush.
Want to buy a PS5? ... nope!
Upgrade your PC? ... maybe next year!
OK then, time to overclock? ... don't bother, it doesn't work anymore!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,514
- Reaction score
- 38,334
On the heels of that EVGA CLC 240mm sale, I'm seeing the best sale on any CPU cooler I've seen in a long time. This cooler isn't terribly popular, but it is Corsair, and it packs a 5-year rebate which is 3 years long than almost all CPU coolers, even the more expensive and popular ones (this is why Noctua with its 10-yr warranties is so legendary). This was intended to be Corsair's splash into the high-end air cooler space. The discount is enormous:
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-a500-ct-9010003-ww/p/N82E16835181193?item=N82E16835181193
Corsair A500
$49.99 sale price - $20 MIR - Coupon Code "EMCGFFH25" = $26.99 tender
This unit launched at a $100 MSRP, and that's still what Corsair is charging at their official store. This typical sale price seen was $80. It only just a few months ago began to sell for $65 on Amazon, but availability has been spotty at that price.
Reviews:
https://www.techspot.com/products/cooling/corsair-a500-cpu-cooler.213153/
The key is to get the installation right with a solid contact. Biggest drawback is that it's louder than the cream of the crop, like the NH-D15, but it will outperform mid-tier and budget CPUs at 50% fan speed while being as quiet.
*Edit*
This sale offers an example of how one can sometimes find huge discounts on unpopular items because the masses got spooked off by poor reviews. There are three caveats with this cooler:
https://www.newegg.com/corsair-a500-ct-9010003-ww/p/N82E16835181193?item=N82E16835181193
Corsair A500
$49.99 sale price - $20 MIR - Coupon Code "EMCGFFH25" = $26.99 tender
This unit launched at a $100 MSRP, and that's still what Corsair is charging at their official store. This typical sale price seen was $80. It only just a few months ago began to sell for $65 on Amazon, but availability has been spotty at that price.
Reviews:
https://www.techspot.com/products/cooling/corsair-a500-cpu-cooler.213153/
The key is to get the installation right with a solid contact. Biggest drawback is that it's louder than the cream of the crop, like the NH-D15, but it will outperform mid-tier and budget CPUs at 50% fan speed while being as quiet.
*Edit*
This sale offers an example of how one can sometimes find huge discounts on unpopular items because the masses got spooked off by poor reviews. There are three caveats with this cooler:
- clearance issues
- noise
- contact seating
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,514
- Reaction score
- 38,334
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 8,491
- Reaction score
- 10,154
Overclocking for gamers doesn't really do a whole lot for gamers these days.
The turbo boosting on CPUs these days is too good. Check here. At the bottom you'll find the stats for Comet Lake. Let's focus on the 10900K:
https://siliconlottery.com/pages/statistics
Only the top 1% of i9 or i7 chips can hit an all-core turbo of 5.2 GHz. Meanwhile, on a single core, these chips will turbo up to 5.3 GHz. So depending on the game the stock chip will sometimes win the fps showdown.
No, what's more practical are the asymmetrical overclocks. You can see that 100% of chips can be overclocked to +200MHz above the max stock 3-core turbo, or +100Mhz vs. the max stock 6-core turbo. Thanks to TechPowerUp, we can see the stock turbo profile below. Their chip hit 5.0 GHz SSE across 6 threads (3 cores), and 4.9GHz across 12 threads (6 cores). So Silicon Lottery is telling us that 100% of 10900Ks can be manually overclocked to 5.1 GHz on up to 3 cores, or 5.1 GHz on up to 6 cores. The latter would be ideal for gaming, but once again, when you set the frequency like this, your top core won't turbo up to 5.3 GHz, so once again, you're making a trade-off.
However, there is some conflicting information on their chart if you inspect their site more closely. Say you're a lottery winner. You get one of the "golden" samples: Top 1%:
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/cometlake/products/10900kf51g
Those can get up to 5.3 GHz across 3 cores, and up to 5.2 GHz across up to 6 cores.
These raw factors of frequency bear out in actual overclocking reviews. For the Intel 10th Gen, Intel 9th Gen, Ryzen 5000 series, and Ryzen 3000 series, there's virtually nothing gained by overclocking in games. The trade-off is a huge spike in the consumption of power, heat, and associated noise output. This means you need a killer motherboard, CPU cooler, PSU (for a more stable current, not just more power), and finally good ventilation in the case. All of these associated costs mean overclocking only makes sense if you're already on a top-tier system.
3DMark is more practical for confirming an overclock's abstract performance potential with GPU. You can use your GPU software to set a boost frequency above the stock boost. Test where this gets you in 3DMark. Then decide if it's worth the consequences to thermals and noise. Of course, you don't need benchmarking software to do this. You can test it in the games you play with their fps. Verify an average fps for a particular segment of the game, timed, with FRAPS.
There are a few cards like the RX 5700 which have extraordinary overclocking potential if you void warranty by unlocking their power limit (what amounts to a governor set by AMD to limit the value of the card, and create a lower price point). Of course, even with these, how it handles added heat is determined by how effective the cooling solution. So you'll want a 3-fan variant, or best of all, a custom liquid cooling aftermarket design. But the latter are expensive as hell. The opportunity cost of buying one is that you could have bought a more powerful GPU one or two tiers of performance above. So we run into the same issue as we did with CPUs. It really only makes sense to pursue these extra inches if you're on a Scrooge McDuck gaming rig.
After all, when you pay a premium for one of the nicer 3-fan GPUs, these days, what you're really purchasing isn't more performance, or much more performance, anyway, but a video card that will perform about equally while staying much cooler and quieter. Additional features like a no-fan idling mode and dual BIOS are the other perks. Notice no-fan modes have already become a factory feature with the NVIDIA RTX 3000 series and AMD RX 6000 series, and cooling performance with the reference editions is fantastic.
These companies are determined to give the customer everything he needs or wants directly. Long gone are the days of the Sandy Bridge DIY free performance gold rush.
This is all true.. I'd just like to add that 3D Mark can also help you determine if you are getting all of the potential power out of your system.
I recently got an RTX 3080 and after I installed it I noticed my Time Spy scores were below the average for similar systems. I started to be concerned a bit, but a few days later, nVidia released a new set of drivers and then my scores started to go above the average for similar rigs.. Then I got to overclocking and found the sweet spot for my CPU and GPU
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 34,954
- Reaction score
- 26,191
I own it, rarely use it. Only time I use it is to check stability issues. I quit overclocking everything to the edge awhile ago.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 66,514
- Reaction score
- 38,334
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 34,954
- Reaction score
- 26,191
They're probably going to run hotter than a spoon at Bobby Browns house.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
lolz, when i read that the sample was being "run at a very high voltage," i figured they were taking the space heater quips as a suggestion.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2015
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 1,028
Big question obviously being pricing. Will Intel try to gain back market share, or are they saying "fuck that, as long as Covid is around, people will just pay whatever it takes anyway, plenty of time to discount in Q3 when this shitshow is projected to come to an end." Considering we're talking about Intel, I'm betting on the latter. On the plus side though - Covid consumer dynamics aside - if these benchmarks are accurate, it forces AMD on the defense again, meaning either they discount the current lineup, or release discounted non-X versions of the current lineup. Either way, having Intel healthy is good for the consumer, so regardless of pricing, I see this as good news.
