(08-14-2017, 07:46 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:40 AM)mothered Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:12 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: Yes, I have. 100th percentile for CPU is pretty neat. See results here

Note: I have a few failing components (unfortunately), but eventually I'll replace the failing NVMe drive (which is still performing seriously better than a SATA SSD), and get more enthusiast-grade memory.

The CPU and GPU have performed a lot better than what I expected. Your said failing components are replaceable/upgradeable, so there's no concern there.

I must say (In my case), ample ram @ 32GB 2400MHz particularly for simultaneous VM usage, SSD, 7th gen Quad Core CPU and a power house card (GTX 1070), Is a "huge" difference In overall performance, stability and functionality. I've replaced all my systems with the aforementioned specs and looking back, I don't know how/why I put up with such sluggish performance prior.

I know exactly what you mean. I'll never go back to SATA drives, and I can't live with less than 24GB or RAM (I commonly use at least 26GB)

(08-14-2017, 08:13 AM)God Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:46 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:40 AM)mothered Wrote: The CPU and GPU have performed a lot better than what I expected. Your said failing components are replaceable/upgradeable, so there's no concern there.

I must say (In my case), ample ram @ 32GB 2400MHz particularly for simultaneous VM usage, SSD, 7th gen Quad Core CPU and a power house card (GTX 1070), Is a "huge" difference In overall performance, stability and functionality. I've replaced all my systems with the aforementioned specs and looking back, I don't know how/why I put up with such sluggish performance prior.

I know exactly what you mean. I'll never go back to SATA drives, and I can't live with less than 24GB or RAM (I commonly use at least 26GB)

Is this in contrast to PCIe, which I'm assuming is to eventually replace SATA? And what kind of programs are you running? My god, I don't think I've even come close to using even 8GB of ram at one time.

(08-14-2017, 08:15 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 08:13 AM)God Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:46 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: I know exactly what you mean. I'll never go back to SATA drives, and I can't live with less than 24GB or RAM (I commonly use at least 26GB)

Is this in contrast to PCIe, which I'm assuming is to eventually replace SATA? And what kind of programs are you running? My god, I don't think I've even come close to using even 8GB of ram at one time.

I'm using NVMe hard disks. NVMe right now iirc only supports PCIe interface via a 4-bit full duplex serial bus. In comparison to SATA's 1-bit serial half duplex bus.
Programs:
VMRC
Chrome (many, many tabs)
VS
SSMS
Discord

(08-14-2017, 09:17 AM)God Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 08:15 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 08:13 AM)God Wrote: Is this in contrast to PCIe, which I'm assuming is to eventually replace SATA? And what kind of programs are you running? My god, I don't think I've even come close to using even 8GB of ram at one time.

I'm using NVMe hard disks. NVMe right now iirc only supports PCIe interface via a 4-bit full duplex serial bus. In comparison to SATA's 1-bit serial half duplex bus.
Programs:
VMRC
Chrome (many, many tabs)
VS
SSMS
Discord

I see. I now feel inadequate using AHCI.

(08-14-2017, 07:58 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:53 AM)mothered Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:46 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote: I know exactly what you mean. I'll never go back to SATA drives, and I can't live with less than 24GB or RAM (I commonly use at least 26GB)

Absolutely agree.

I even dread the thought of booting up my systems with SATA HDDs and 4GB (yes "4GB") of ram. They're now dedicated for testing purposes.

I remember as a child, I had an IBM T41 that I loved the shit out of. It had 512M of RAM, a single core 1200MHz CPU, and a 40GB 5200rpm magnetic drive. Back then, single core was standard, dual core was awesome, and quad cores were bleeding edge server CPU's. I can remember the moment when some scientists at a university managed to clock a CPU to 3GHz. I thought I'd never see those speeds in my lifetime.

(08-14-2017, 12:02 PM)mothered Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:58 AM)phyrrus9 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 07:53 AM)mothered Wrote: Absolutely agree.

I even dread the thought of booting up my systems with SATA HDDs and 4GB (yes "4GB") of ram. They're now dedicated for testing purposes.

I remember as a child, I had an IBM T41 that I loved the shit out of. It had 512M of RAM, a single core 1200MHz CPU, and a 40GB 5200rpm magnetic drive. Back then, single core was standard, dual core was awesome, and quad cores were bleeding edge server CPU's. I can remember the moment when some scientists at a university managed to clock a CPU to 3GHz. I thought I'd never see those speeds in my lifetime.

When you look back now (at your specs), you'd probably never believe the day would come with quad core CPUs, 64GB of ram, 8GB GPUs and TB+ HDDs .

If you thought your specs were bad, I remember running the16 Bit Windows 3.1 OS with the 386 CPU, "4MB" of Ram and a "500MB" HDD. I don't remember the graphics card. To fully boot, It took over 5 minutes.

(08-24-2017, 04:24 AM)rainforest Wrote: Here it is in speccy, left out some shit.