PC Tech Thread

You should check whether it would work.

And that would be a no then.

Oh well

Anyone care to answer this to save me some time digging around in manuals

I've secced a computer with:

AMD Ryzen 9 5950x processor
ASUS® ROG STRIX X570-F GAMING motherboard
and currently 4 x 16GB Ram

Person A says this will not be optimal because the processor has 2 memory channels
Person B says it doesn't matter because the Ram is divided in to Channel 1 A/B and Channel 2 A/B

Who's correct?

MB specs seem to say 4 sticks is fine

4 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR4 *4400(O.C)/4266(O.C.)/4133(O.C.)/4000(O.C.)/3866(O.C.)/3600(O.C.)/3400(O.C.)/3200(O.C.)/3000(O.C.)/2800(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133
MHz ECC and non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory *
4 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR4 3600(O.C.)/3400(O.C.)/3200(O.C.)/3000(O.C.)/2800(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133
MHz ECC and non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory
4 x DIMM, Max. 128GB, DDR4 3200(O.C.)/3000(O.C.)/2800(O.C.)/2666/2400/2133 MHz ECC and non-ECC,
Un-buffered Memory
3rd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors 2nd Gen AMD Ryzen™ Processors 2nd and 1st Gen AMD Ryzen™ with Radeon™ Vega Graphics Processors Dual Channel
Memory Architecture

Edit: it's Corsair Vengance DDR4 3200Mhz, which I think is Dual Rank, whatever that means, apparently it's relevant

You're into such minutaie that it's all irrelevant.

The CPU has 2 memory channels, meaning the 4 DIMMs work in pairs for the CPU. If you only have 2 DIMMs to put into the machine then they need to go into specific DIMM slots such that each CPU channel gets 1 DIMM. If you have 4 DIMMs then 2 supply the 2 CPU memory channels.

But there is no optimal here... it's all good enough.

The more pressing question is whether you want to purchase 4 x 16GB or 2 x 32GB. The latter gives you an upgrade path in future for a small premium now, the former is maxing out the upgrade path for those components... slightly cheaper now but way more expensive to change in future.

The other arguments seem excessively pedantic... memory speed hasn't been a bottle neck for years, the bottlenecks are predominantly storage and network, and then the number of physical cores. You would not notice mild memory differences, only big jumps in total memory volume.

Which is to say that the biggest perfomances differences come from:

1. Faster local storage
   
2. Faster networking locally and to the internet
   
3. More physical cores on the CPU
   
4. More total memory
   
   

Exact configuration of RAM and RAM timings and speed isn't as noticeable as anything above, perhaps a +/- 1% difference that you couldn't perceive unless you're running a system at full capacity for a sustained period of time which no-one is (even tasks people think of like that don't use all the things all the time).

The other arguments seem excessively pedantic... memory speed hasn't been a bottle neck for years, the bottlenecks are predominantly storage and network, and then the number of physical cores. You would not notice mild memory differences, only big jumps in total memory volume.

Fair point, a little more reading about and I was getting that feeling!

Yes I did think about the upgrade thing, given it's not my money paying for it I think it's easier to get it over the line now with a cheaper price. Apparently we're moving everything to the cloud in a few years. 64Gb serves me fine for now.

Which is to say that the biggest perfomances differences come from:

Faster local storage
Faster networking locally and to the internet
More physical cores on the CPU
More total memory

That list is very dependent on application. Currently using a 24 core 3960X with 128GB RAM for work (3D modelling) and it's about half as fast as my i9/32GB. Even a new i5 would be significantly quicker. Network and storage speeds also irrelevant in this case, even loading and saving is CPU-bound.

Yeah, I am noticing that now, I am converting thousands of images in Lightroom and thought I move them onto the local SSD instead of the network drive, doesn't make a bit of a difference.

Network and storage speeds also irrelevant in this case, even loading and saving is CPU-bound.

Since 2005 CPU and memory speeds haven't improved: https://colin-scott.github.io/personal_website/research/interactive_latency.html

What's improved have been storage speeds (SSDs got faster, SSDs replaced HDDs) and networking speeds.

The only big difference on a CPU has been the number of physical cores provided.*

We've gone from Moore's law to Amdahl's law.

* And heterogeneous CPUs with mixed types of cores making "a core" (almost all recent Intel, AMD, and ARM designed chips like the M1) and also shared virtual memory which allows a single piece of on-processor memory to be exposed to multiple processing units (i.e. certain Intels, AMD Ryzen, Apple M1).

Adobe doesn't know.

The only big difference on a CPU has been the number of physical cores provided.*

That's contradicted by your 5950x being significantly faster than it's immediate predecessor despite an identical number of cores and very similar clock speeds...

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_9_5950x-1749-vs-amd_ryzen_9_3950x-932

Any list of single-thread benchmarks will show similar generational improvements.

If single-core performance wasn't increasing there'd be less incentive for me to upgrade, but I got a 50% increase going from 9th to 12th gen i9.

That's contradicted

Covered by the asterick.

I did consider that, but it's quite a caveat given that it's responsible for up to 20% difference :)

Ah... how to craft a generalisation when the latest generation has changed the architecture entirely and rendered comparisons null and void 🤣

It's the heterogenous processors and shared virtual memory stuff... it's awesome.

Finally fired up Elden Ring too... damn, what a lazy PC conversion. I spent a good 5-10 minutes trying to work out what key on my keyboard was Y because it sure as hell wasn't the Y key. And it turns out all in-game instructions are written for a console controller.

bit late now but in settings under sound and display you can choose 'device for on-screen prompts' and set to either keyboard or gamepad.

Very late.

Already refunded and playing Cyberpunk 2077 instead. And oh my, I love ray tracing. It's subtle but adds a layer of realism that makes you pause at times.

Flight Simulator has the same "assumes game controller" symptom, but am going to persevere with that one.

Finally got the work computer over the line. Another 5950x. Looking forward to having double the rendering speed in Vray! New supplier has Noctua CPU coolers too.

Corsair 4000D Airflow Tempered Glass ATX Case (Black)
Corsair RM850 - 850Watt fully modular Gold PSU
ASRock X570 Phantom Gaming ITX/TB3 Motherboard
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 3.4-4.9GHz 16 Core UNLOCKED Processor
Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 AMD RyzenCPU Cooler
64GB DDR4-3200 Unbuffered 2Rx8 DIMM
Gigabyte GeForce RTX3080Ti Gaming OC 12GB PCIe4.0 x16 Graphics card
Seagate FireCuda 530 PCI Express Gen 4 2TB M.2 NVMe SSD

Very nice.

Anyone updated to Windows 11 headless? Can you do it over RDP or VNC or should I plug a monitor in?

Am upgrading the cabling in my new PC... because obviously that needs it.

The Fractal case runs all of the fans off of a hub that takes the PWM fan speed from the CPU header, meaning the case fans run fast when the CPU fan runs fast... all of them, even when that's not needed.

So I'm going to run the front fans linked to the CPU temp, the bottom fans linked to the GPU temp, and the rear fans linked to the max of either CPU or GPU temp.

I'd also installed Asus Armoury Crate for AuraSync... but then you need Corsair iCue for the memory modules... that's a few GB of program to control some lights. So I'm going to see whether I can write a lightweight Go program to control the lighting and then uninstall all of this other stuff. I just don't believe that these interfaces are proprietary and that they require GBs of disk space in programs to set the light colours according to CPU and GPU temp.

I had a proper facepalm moment when I recently realised I'd been doing this wrong for years.

Always had fans controlled by CPU temp by default, completely stupid since I'm watercooled. Even the briefest spikes in CPU load would cause everything to go loud, which was totally unnecessary because they didn't have any effect on the water temp.

I've now got the radiator fans controlled by water temp and other case fans controlled by GPU temp. Have set the curves for the radiator fans to be 100% by 40c but haven't seen them beyond 50% and they're still barely audible at that speed. Was concerned that the water temp would stay high without much airflow but it drops reasonably quickly.

Is all RAM much of a muchness? Well all DDR3 RAM I guess.

Thinking about upgrading to an SSD, and also debating whether to "upgrade" to 16GB as opposed to my current 12GB

Slot "BANK 0", 8 GB, Speed "1600 MHz SODIMM", Type "DDR3", Manufacturer "0467"
Slot "BANK 2", 4 GB, Speed "1600 MHz SODIMM", Type "DDR3", Manufacturer "0467"

Yeah.

The SSD difference will be big, and then just adding to the total amount of RAM will help.

Pretty much. At least if you're not concerned about squeezing the last % from an overclocked machine.

The SSD will make far more of a difference than going from 12->16GB. But if you've got the machine open anyway and the DDR3 kit is cheap then may as well while you're there.

Edit: Yup, exactly what the boss said ^

Cheers.

if you've got the machine open anyway

...was my thinking.

Basically if I can find an 8GB to replace the 4GB and match the other 8GB then it's inexpensive. But if I have to buy 2 x 8GB new (~£60), then it's not really worth it.

Am I right thinking this is laptop RAM? Have some DDR3 going spare but it's desktop stuff.

SODIMM, so probably