Both Corsair and EVGA make great PSU's.
I think anything more than 600W is a pretty rare use case honestly. That's a lot of juice, even with todays CPU's and GPU's.
One potential benefit is sound - newer PSUs only have the fans kick on if they're using a certain amount of juice, and that rises with each wattage (I think it's theoretically 40% load, but I'm sure it has something to do with temperature of components). I have a 1000W because I got it on a good sale, and my PSU fan basically never turns on.
I ended up getting a corsair RM850x, and while I was there I picked up an H60 cooler for the CPU. Figured why not go whisper quiet?
+2
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
For PSUs I still go to HardOCP because they test the shit out of them, and they know what they are looking for when tearing them down. If they give a PSU a high rating then I know I'm buying quality.
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
A lot (a LOT) of the better PSUs from more popular brands are just SeaSonic OEM units rebranded. So you can cut out the middleman and just go straight to SeaSonic, because they're still the Rolls Royce of PSUs.
+1
Options
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
Speaking of Seasonic, is it still cool to recommend the Barracuda HDD's?
I personally made to switch to a WD Black a few years ago, but I remember those Seasonic HDD's being pretty popular.
A lot (a LOT) of the better PSUs from more popular brands are just SeaSonic OEM units rebranded. So you can cut out the middleman and just go straight to SeaSonic, because they're still the Rolls Royce of PSUs.
That's what I did, and then the SeaSonic died in 3 years. Single occurrence, I know, but still kinda stinks...
I was tempted to buy the RTX 2070 while I was at bestbuy. I've never impulse bought a GPU before, and my brain did stop me before I spent $600, but I have a GTX 960 right now and just think of the increase in performance!
For PSUs I still go to HardOCP because they test the shit out of them, and they know what they are looking for when tearing them down. If they give a PSU a high rating then I know I'm buying quality.
Johnny Guru is pretty good too as a baseline if you want to make sure that a PSU is hitting the right efficiencies, and you want some PSU internal photos
To answer your question. Seagate is pretty good, but the general wisdom on the streets is to avoid their 3 terabyte drives.
NOTE: I DID NOT RESEARCH THIS SO TELL ME IF I'M WRONG; I'M GOING FROM MEMORY
Seagate bought Maxtor back in the....early 2000s? and sort of absorbed them into Seagate's business. It was right around the time Seagate managed to crack the "vertical pit" wall that was keeping hard drives from going above (I want to say) 4-6 GB without adding tons of platters.
Since then, Seagate's drive performance has yo-yo'ed a bit. For a while, they were considered better than WD for long term performance. Currently, as @LD50 notes, a few of the drives in their inventory are worth avoiding, but they can still compete with WD for overall spinning drive performance.
+1
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
To answer your question. Seagate is pretty good, but the general wisdom on the streets is to avoid their 3 terabyte drives.
NOTE: I DID NOT RESEARCH THIS SO TELL ME IF I'M WRONG; I'M GOING FROM MEMORY
Seagate bought Maxtor back in the....early 2000s? and sort of absorbed them into Seagate's business. It was right around the time Seagate managed to crack the "vertical pit" wall that was keeping hard drives from going above (I want to say) 4-6 GB without adding tons of platters.
Since then, Seagate's drive performance has yo-yo'ed a bit. For a while, they were considered better than WD for long term performance. Currently, as @LD50 notes, a few of the drives in their inventory are worth avoiding, but they can still compete with WD for overall spinning drive performance.
It's worth noting that the same is true of WD also. Their drives are also reliable, but there are specific models that are known for having more issues than others.
To answer your question. Seagate is pretty good, but the general wisdom on the streets is to avoid their 3 terabyte drives.
NOTE: I DID NOT RESEARCH THIS SO TELL ME IF I'M WRONG; I'M GOING FROM MEMORY
Seagate bought Maxtor back in the....early 2000s? and sort of absorbed them into Seagate's business. It was right around the time Seagate managed to crack the "vertical pit" wall that was keeping hard drives from going above (I want to say) 4-6 GB without adding tons of platters.
Since then, Seagate's drive performance has yo-yo'ed a bit. For a while, they were considered better than WD for long term performance. Currently, as @LD50 notes, a few of the drives in their inventory are worth avoiding, but they can still compete with WD for overall spinning drive performance.
It's worth noting that the same is true of WD also. Their drives are also reliable, but there are specific models that are known for having more issues than others.
When I went looking for various hard drives a while back, I found this guy's blog:
As of June 30, 2018 we had 100,254 spinning hard drives in Backblaze’s data centers. Of that number, there were 1,989 boot drives and 98,265 data drives.
...
Of the 98,265 hard drives we were monitoring at the end of Q2 2018, we removed from consideration those drives used for testing purposes and those drive models for which we did not have at least 45 drives. This leaves us with 98,184 hard drives. The table below covers just Q2 2018.
More details in the link, but they also have lifetime info:
It's an interesting data point to get an idea of failure rates.
...the only place you really see the difference in performance for all these CPUs, which, again, range in price from $190 to $900, is in our two most demanding tests. In one we note how long it takes to render a 3D image in Blender. In the other we convert a large 4K video into 1080p. They’re both decently tasking processes that really take advantage of all those cores and threads I’ve mentioned. They’re the only place where you see any significant difference in all these CPUs. Here things play out very much as expected—an AMD CPU with a similar power requirement and the same core and thread count will beat the pricier Intel product.
But surprisingly the i9 9900K is a rare exception. It’s tremendously fast and actually rivals the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, a product that is $400 more and has nearly double the power requirement and cores and threads.
...for most people, it’s more a bragging right than a viable purchase. Unless you’re spending a lot of time rendering the i9 9900K simply isn’t worth its $500 price tag. The AMD options will be nearly as fast for nearly half as much—which—okay that’s the same thing I said when comparing the i9 9900K to the Threadripper. You see what I mean? The landscape isn’t as clear-cut as it once was!
So what do you buy? For most people, the latest i5 or Ryzen 5 will be enough, pick your poison based on your budget. But if you want Threadripper level rendering speeds in a chip that’s almost half the price the i9 9900K is a new and excellent option. It may feel like it’s more difficult to figure out what CPU is right for you, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. No matter your budget right now both AMD and Intel are producing wicked fast CPUs right now.
Hardtarget on
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time....
A long time....
I used to spend a LOT of time on that site in the early 2000s
Same here. It used to be a daily visit for me, but now its usually more monthly until I start getting ready to upgrade again and have to get caught back up on the tech.
I'm looking to upgrade the DDR3 RAM on my old machine from 2x4GB to 2x16GB, since my mobo only has 2 memory slots. What I've discovered in my travels is that some DDR3 RAM only works with AMD CPUs for some reason (I have an Intel CPU), and of course this AMD-specific RAM is a lot cheaper than the "Intel RAM" that I apparently need. I guess my question is, what specific feature is it that I should be looking for to determine whether RAM will work or not? Most of the "AMD RAM" listings on ebay will say in great big letters "FOR AMD CPU ONLY" but I want to make sure I don't accidentally purchase RAM that won't work because the seller didn't think to add that to their listing.
Halp?
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I'm looking to upgrade the DDR3 RAM on my old machine from 2x4GB to 2x16GB, since my mobo only has 2 memory slots. What I've discovered in my travels is that some DDR3 RAM only works with AMD CPUs for some reason (I have an Intel CPU), and of course this AMD-specific RAM is a lot cheaper than the "Intel RAM" that I apparently need. I guess my question is, what specific feature is it that I should be looking for to determine whether RAM will work or not? Most of the "AMD RAM" listings on ebay will say in great big letters "FOR AMD CPU ONLY" but I want to make sure I don't accidentally purchase RAM that won't work because the seller didn't think to add that to their listing.
Halp?
You'll want the QVL for your motherboard model. It's a list that calls out all the RAM modules that your motherboard manufacturer has tested with your motherboard and has determined will definitely work, and not cause any issues. Just google search your motherboard model and QVL, and it should come up. For example, I would search for "ASUS Sabretooth Z77 QVL", and the first result is this: https://www.asus.com/au/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_Z77/HelpDesk_QVL/ I want the second download link from the top, to get the file Z77_HM_Series_DRAM_QVL_201406 as that is the latest and most up to date version of the QVL.
Also because I'd hate to think my presence is dampening conversation in any way, please don't assume I'll be "defense force" or anything like that - I try to only interject in some of the weird assumptions folks (including myself in the past) make (for example, the 7nm vs 10nm in different companies type stuff), but otherwise try to keep out of conversations (recommendations, etc) altogether.
So I'll be the one to post the rumor today and leave it at that. I genuinely have absolutely no idea, this isn't my department and it's not the sort of thing I'd typically find out before the general public.
Some good news: my RMA 1080 card is finally in the mail and trucking across the country. Should be in my hands by Thursday, right around the time my RMA monitor should arrive too.
This build feels like it has been cursed, but soon (knocks on wood) all will be well.
+11
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Some good news: my RMA 1080 card is finally in the mail and trucking across the country. Should be in my hands by Thursday, right around the time my RMA monitor should arrive too.
This build feels like it has been cursed, but soon (knocks on wood) all will be well.
This is how we all learned! \o/
Soon, you too can join in with typical recommendations, then debate on the merits of positive pressure cases and argue monolithic air coolers vs. AIOs. Come on in, the water's fine.
I'm looking to upgrade the DDR3 RAM on my old machine from 2x4GB to 2x16GB, since my mobo only has 2 memory slots. What I've discovered in my travels is that some DDR3 RAM only works with AMD CPUs for some reason (I have an Intel CPU), and of course this AMD-specific RAM is a lot cheaper than the "Intel RAM" that I apparently need. I guess my question is, what specific feature is it that I should be looking for to determine whether RAM will work or not? Most of the "AMD RAM" listings on ebay will say in great big letters "FOR AMD CPU ONLY" but I want to make sure I don't accidentally purchase RAM that won't work because the seller didn't think to add that to their listing.
Halp?
You'll want the QVL for your motherboard model. It's a list that calls out all the RAM modules that your motherboard manufacturer has tested with your motherboard and has determined will definitely work, and not cause any issues. Just google search your motherboard model and QVL, and it should come up. For example, I would search for "ASUS Sabretooth Z77 QVL", and the first result is this: https://www.asus.com/au/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_Z77/HelpDesk_QVL/ I want the second download link from the top, to get the file Z77_HM_Series_DRAM_QVL_201406 as that is the latest and most up to date version of the QVL.
I read all of this and did my research and then impulse bought some RAM on ebay because it was a new listing and it was going for $30 cheaper than anywhere else. And its a brand that I'd never previously heard of (Hynix) that are definitely not on my MOBO's QVL list.
So now I'm feeling pretty dumb and just praying that my bargain-bin RAM actually works. Hurr.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I worked for Hynix about a decade ago. They closed their fab plant in my city when the chip market took a downturn and the building has been empty ever since. If you owned an early model Xbox 360 or iPod there is a chance I touched one of the wafers that became memory that went into your machine.
How picky are QVL lists? I have an ASRock Z97 Anniversary motherboard and 4 modules of Crucial Ballistix XT 4GB DDR3 RAM.
I've been having random reboot issues for a couple years now. I finally figured I would check the QVL for my motherboard and they don't have a 4GB module from that manufacturer listed. Does this seem like a possible cause of my reboots?
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I never pay attention to QVL. That's not to say your ram might not have issues, but I've never run into issues with ignoring the lists. If you think you've got a problem, run a bootable Memtest x86+ (make sure to get the + version)
I never pay attention to QVL. That's not to say your ram might not have issues, but I've never run into issues with ignoring the lists. If you think you've got a problem, run a bootable Memtest x86+ (make sure to get the + version)
I'm almost done Pass 2 of 4 of the non+ version of memtest right now and so far no errors. The thing I was looking at said that the + version isn't being supported anymore so I didn't go with that one. Should I run that one next?
I never pay attention to QVL. That's not to say your ram might not have issues, but I've never run into issues with ignoring the lists. If you think you've got a problem, run a bootable Memtest x86+ (make sure to get the + version)
I'm almost done Pass 2 of 4 of the non+ version of memtest right now and so far no errors. The thing I was looking at said that the + version isn't being supported anymore so I didn't go with that one. Should I run that one next?
It's probably not all that important to run +. A single pass is usually enough to find most memory errors. It sounds to me like it might not be RAM related.
Yeah I don't think it's RAM related and most likely motherboard but I don't know how to test for the motherboard other than prove it's none of the other stuff. Underload, everything maxes out at about 50C so I don't think it's that. My PSU tester makes it look like my Seasonic 550W is working. I've put in a new GPU. I supposed it could be the Crucial SSD or something. I haven't done a reinstall in years. But I think I heard someone else had a very similar issue with the exact same motherboard and they replaced it and it was all fixed after. Unfortunately, a Z97 motherboard seems to run about CDN$200 these days incl shipping which seems a lot to spend on something to repair instead of upgrade.
I'd do a clean install of Windows before trying to replace any hardware.
Incidentally, did you test your HDD too?
I haven't tested the SSD or HDD. What's the best way to do that?
http://www.system-rescue-cd.org/ has WHDD on it. Basically boot the thing using defaults until you get to a command line. Type WHDD and select read test.
Posts
ahhh yeah, that's a good point
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I personally made to switch to a WD Black a few years ago, but I remember those Seasonic HDD's being pretty popular.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
I was tempted to buy the RTX 2070 while I was at bestbuy. I've never impulse bought a GPU before, and my brain did stop me before I spent $600, but I have a GTX 960 right now and just think of the increase in performance!
I think you mean Seagate which I believe is different from Seasonic
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
A long time....
I used to spend a LOT of time on that site in the early 2000s
Shit you're right. I totally Sea where I went wrong there
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Johnny Guru is pretty good too as a baseline if you want to make sure that a PSU is hitting the right efficiencies, and you want some PSU internal photos
NOTE: I DID NOT RESEARCH THIS SO TELL ME IF I'M WRONG; I'M GOING FROM MEMORY
Seagate bought Maxtor back in the....early 2000s? and sort of absorbed them into Seagate's business. It was right around the time Seagate managed to crack the "vertical pit" wall that was keeping hard drives from going above (I want to say) 4-6 GB without adding tons of platters.
Since then, Seagate's drive performance has yo-yo'ed a bit. For a while, they were considered better than WD for long term performance. Currently, as @LD50 notes, a few of the drives in their inventory are worth avoiding, but they can still compete with WD for overall spinning drive performance.
this is my favourite post
It's worth noting that the same is true of WD also. Their drives are also reliable, but there are specific models that are known for having more issues than others.
When I went looking for various hard drives a while back, I found this guy's blog:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-stats-for-q2-2018/
More details in the link, but they also have lifetime info:
It's an interesting data point to get an idea of failure rates.
The culprit isn't quite what you would think.
Them chips be thick.
https://slickdeals.net/f/12143326-amd-ryzen-7-2700-cpu-asrock-asrock-fatal1ty-x470-gaming-k4-am4-amd-promontory-motherboard-330-ar-newegg?src=frontpage
https://gizmodo.com/intels-5ghz-i9-processor-is-incredible-for-hype-and-pre-1829850360
basically:
Same here. It used to be a daily visit for me, but now its usually more monthly until I start getting ready to upgrade again and have to get caught back up on the tech.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
I'm looking to upgrade the DDR3 RAM on my old machine from 2x4GB to 2x16GB, since my mobo only has 2 memory slots. What I've discovered in my travels is that some DDR3 RAM only works with AMD CPUs for some reason (I have an Intel CPU), and of course this AMD-specific RAM is a lot cheaper than the "Intel RAM" that I apparently need. I guess my question is, what specific feature is it that I should be looking for to determine whether RAM will work or not? Most of the "AMD RAM" listings on ebay will say in great big letters "FOR AMD CPU ONLY" but I want to make sure I don't accidentally purchase RAM that won't work because the seller didn't think to add that to their listing.
Halp?
You'll want the QVL for your motherboard model. It's a list that calls out all the RAM modules that your motherboard manufacturer has tested with your motherboard and has determined will definitely work, and not cause any issues. Just google search your motherboard model and QVL, and it should come up. For example, I would search for "ASUS Sabretooth Z77 QVL", and the first result is this: https://www.asus.com/au/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_Z77/HelpDesk_QVL/ I want the second download link from the top, to get the file Z77_HM_Series_DRAM_QVL_201406 as that is the latest and most up to date version of the QVL.
So I'll be the one to post the rumor today and leave it at that. I genuinely have absolutely no idea, this isn't my department and it's not the sort of thing I'd typically find out before the general public.
https://semiaccurate.com/2018/10/22/intel-kills-off-the-10nm-process/
Intel official response
Earnings reports are in 3 days, I imagine we'd hear something more concrete then if true.
This build feels like it has been cursed, but soon (knocks on wood) all will be well.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/report-intel-is-cancelling-its-10nm-process-intel-no-were-not/ lol
Don't feel bad. It's more common than you'd think.
This is how we all learned! \o/
Soon, you too can join in with typical recommendations, then debate on the merits of positive pressure cases and argue monolithic air coolers vs. AIOs. Come on in, the water's fine.
I read all of this and did my research and then impulse bought some RAM on ebay because it was a new listing and it was going for $30 cheaper than anywhere else. And its a brand that I'd never previously heard of (Hynix) that are definitely not on my MOBO's QVL list.
So now I'm feeling pretty dumb and just praying that my bargain-bin RAM actually works. Hurr.
Steam | XBL
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
There were metal chopsticks in the cafeteria.
I've been having random reboot issues for a couple years now. I finally figured I would check the QVL for my motherboard and they don't have a 4GB module from that manufacturer listed. Does this seem like a possible cause of my reboots?
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
I'm almost done Pass 2 of 4 of the non+ version of memtest right now and so far no errors. The thing I was looking at said that the + version isn't being supported anymore so I didn't go with that one. Should I run that one next?
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
It's probably not all that important to run +. A single pass is usually enough to find most memory errors. It sounds to me like it might not be RAM related.
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
Incidentally, did you test your HDD too?
I haven't tested the SSD or HDD. What's the best way to do that?
SteamID: edgruberman GOG Galaxy: EdGruberman
http://www.system-rescue-cd.org/ has WHDD on it. Basically boot the thing using defaults until you get to a command line. Type WHDD and select read test.